syy-)     1jldM>^ 


i  a^f   *MJ      3  1 


*r 


■ 

- 

0 


* 


' 


I    T~ 


7 


Abraham  Lincoln. 

(The  statue  at  Lincoln,  Nebraska,  unveiled  September  2,  1912.     Repro- 
duced with  the  courteous  permission  of  the  sculptor,  Daniel  C.  French.) 

.  .  .  that  this  nation,  under  God,  shall  have  a  new 
birth  of  freedom,  and  that  government  of  the  peo- 
ple, by  the  people,  and  for  the  people,  shall  not 
perish  from  the  earth.  —  Gettysburg  Address. 


American 
History  and  Government 


BY 


WILLIS    MASON   WEST 

SOMETIME   PROFESSOR   OF   HISTORY   AND    HEAD   OF  THE    DEPARTMENT 
IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   MINNESOTA 


3j»i< 


ALLYN    AND    BACON 


/ 


V, 


f  -  ' 


COPYRIGHT,   1913, 
BY  WILLIS   MASON   WEST. 


- 


OLC 


Narfoooti  $wg8 

J.  8.  Cushing  Co.  — Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


C<^^AJt^>Ct>Mrlr      |~.  «d^AA>v* 


fr/7f 


FOREWORD 


This  volume  aims  to  fuse  the  study  of  social  and  industrial 
development  with  a  study  of  political  institutions.  The  pri- 
mary purpose  in  the  book  is  History,  not  Government.  And 
yet  I  hope,  even  on  the  side  of  political  institutions,  compensa- 
tion for  minor  detail  may  be  found  by  presenting  the  vital 
organs  of  our  government  where  each  may  be  best  understood 
as  a  product  of  progressive  history  —  instead  of  treating  the 
whole  as  a  complex  machine,  unaccounted  for  save  by  perfunc- 
tory and  costly  digressions. 

The  "History"  part  is  not  merely  political  history.  The 
growth  of  our  political  democracy  has  been  intertwined  with 
the  development  of  our  economic  and  industrial  conditions.  I 
have  tried  to  make  this  interaction  the  pervading  principle  in 
determining  the  arrangement  and  selection  of  material.  Some 
details  on  the  industrial  side  have  failed  to  find  room ;  but  the 
vital  features,  I  hope,  do  stand  out  as  conditioning  our  other 
progress. 

The  volume  is  not  a  special  plea.  American  democracy 
needs  no  special  pleading.  Its  weaknesses,  sins,  blunders, 
are  here  portrayed,  on  occasion.  But  I  should  not  have  cared 
to  write  the  book  at  all,  if  I  had  not  believed  that  a  fair  presen- 
tation of  American  history  gives  to  American  youth  a  robust 
and  aggressive  faith  in  democracy.  At  the  same  time,  I  have 
tried  to  correct  the  common  delusion  which  looks  back  to  Jef- 
ferson or  John  Winthrop  for  a  golden  age,  and  to  show  instead 
that  democracy  has  as  yet  been  tried  only  imperfectly  among  us. 

These  general  considerations  account  for  three  features 
which  appear  in  a  degree  peculiar  among  books  of  this  class : 
the  large  place  given  to  the  study  of  Western  development, 
with  the  interaction  of  the  frontier  upon  the  older  parts  of  the 


iv  FOREWORD 

country;1  the  emphasis  laid  upon  the  deeply  significant  labor 
movement  of  1825-1840 ; 2  and  the  detailed  story  of  the  recent 
"  progressive  "  movement.  In  connection  with  the  last,  there 
is  presented  a  survey  of  the  economic  and  political  conditions 
of  to-day,  with  brief  statements  of  the  main  problems  now  con- 
fronting our  people. 

Experienced  teachers  will,  I  trust,  be  patient  with  the  profuse 
suggestions  regarding  methods  of  using  the  volume  which  ap- 
pear in  the  early  portion.  These  are  merely  suggestions,  and 
are  meant  for  young  teachers  and  for  others  overburdened  with 
work.  Constant  reference  is  made,  through  the  first  half  of 
the  volume,  to  the  author's  Source  Book,3  which  has  been  pre- 
pared as  a  companion  volume.  For  the  early  part  of  our  his- 
tory, a  careful  use  of  such  a  collection  may  profitably  take  the 
place  of  other  library  work,  provided  library  reference  has  its 
due  attention  during  the  rest  of  the  year.  The  use  of  the 
Source  Book,  however,  is  by  no  means  indispensable  to  the 
volume,  if  the  teacher  prefer  to  use  a  library  instead. 

It  is  impossible  to  acknowledge  here  all  my  indebtedness  to 
friends  and  helpers.  I  must,  however,  take  this  opportunity  to 
thank  Professor  Frank  Maloy  Anderson,  of  the  University  of 
Minnesota,  both  for  constructive  help  and  for  the  elimination 
of  various  faults.  Miss  Ethelyn  Kemp,  too,  has  saved  me  many 
hours  of  toil  by  her  skill  and  trustworthiness  in  the  use  of 
documents. 

WILLIS  MASON  WEST. 

Windago  Farm,  September,  1913. 

1  No  text-book  has  been  able  altogether  to  neglect  this  topic  since  the  ap- 
pearance of  Frederick  J.  Turner's  brilliant  essays  twenty  years  ago. 

2  This  chapter  in  our  development  had  been  practically  lost  until  it  was 
again  made  accessible  two  years  ago  by  Dr.  John  R.  Commons  and  Miss  Helen 
Sumner  in  their  "Labor  Movements,  1825-1840"  (volumes  V  and  VI  of  the 
great  Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society) . 

8  Willis  Mason  West,  Source  Book  of  American  History  to  1790  :  Illustra- 
tive Readings  and  Documents.    1913.    Allyn  and  Bacon. 

Like  my  Modern  History,  this  Source  Book  is  referred  to  in  the  following 
pages  by  title  only,  without  repetition  of  the  author's  name. 


CONTENTS 


List  of  Maps  and  Plans           .         .        .         .        .         .         .        .  xi 

List  of  Illustrations xiii 

Introduction 

I.   America  as  the  English  found  It 1 

II.   European  Rivals  of  England  in  America 7 

PART  I.    THE  ENGLISH  IN  AMERICA 

Chapter  I.    Southern  Colonies  to  1660 

I.   Conditions  and  Motives  of  Colonization 15 

II.   Virginia  under  the  London  Company,  1607-1624       .         .         .21 

III.  Virginia  as  a  Neglected  Royal  Province,  1624-1660  ...  37 

IV.  Maryland:  a  Proprietary  Province 44 

Chapter  II.    New  England  to  1660 

I.   Commercialism  and  Puritanism  as  Factors  in  Colonization       .  50 

II.   The  Separatist  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth 53 

III.   Massachusetts  Bay  —  an  aristocratic  theocracy         ...  66 

A.  Foundation  in  commercial  enterprise    ....  66 

B.  Becomes  a  corporate  colony  and  a  Puritan  common- 

wealth      70 

C.  Political  Development,  to  the  establishment  of  repre- 

sentative government,  1630-1634  ....  77 

D.  Evolution  of  a  two-House  legislature  (two-House  legis- 

latures then  and  now) 86 

E.  Local  government  (the  Virginia  county  and  the  New 

England  town :  later  developments)       ...  91 

F.  Evolution  of  political  machinery  .         .         .         .         .97 

G.  Evolution  of  a  judicial  system .99 

H.  Theocratic  elements ;  "persecution"   ....  102 

v 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

IV.    Other  New  England  Colonies 109 

V.   The  New  England  Confederation 114 

Chapter  III.    1660-1690 :  Struggle  to  Preserve  Self-Government 

I.   General  Tendencies  (territorial  expansion  ;  a  colonial  system  ; 

navigation  acts) 118 

II.   The  Colonies  in  Detail       . 124 

Chapter  IV.    Provincial  America,  1600-1760 

I.   Material    Growth  (immigration ;    the  West  and  the   Scotch- 
Irish)  143 

II.   Intercolonial  Wars  (victory  of  English  civilization)  .         .     146 

III.   Constitutional  Development  (Commercial  control ;  administra- 
tive control ;  gains  by  the  colonists) 147 

Chapter  V.    Colonial  Life  f 

"Blue  Laws";    Decay  of  Puritanism;    Education;    Population; 

Occupations;  Labor;  Home-life 156 


PART  II.   THE  MAKING  OF  A  NATION 

Chapter  VI.    Separation  from  England,  1 763-1 783 

I.   Preparation  in  the  Intercolonial  Wars 172 

II.  The  Question  Opened  (attempts  at  taxation)     ....     174 

III.  Fundamental  Causes  (colonial  system  outgrown  ;  political  con- 

ditions in  England  ;  social  unrest  in  America)    .         .         .182 

IV.  Transition  from  Colonies  to  the  United  States 

A.  Constitutional  agitation :  provincial  and  Continental 

congresses,  1774 196 

B.  Breakup  of  English  authority  :    provincial  congresses 

become  de  facto  governments  ;   development  of  a 
new  central  government ;  development  of  State 

governments 211 

Or   A  union  of  independent  States :    making  a  constitution 

in  Virginia;  Declaration  of  Independence     .         .217 


CONTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

D.  The  Thirteen  State  Constitutions  (formation  ;  ratifica- 

tion ;   characteristics ;   the  franchise  ;    amending 
clauses  ;  State  governments  then  and  now)  .         .     225 

E.  The  Congress  and  the  war 235 

Chapter  VII.    The  West,  1 769-1 787 

I.  The  Southwest :  a  self -developed  section  (Watauga,  the  Cum- 
berland settlements,  and  Kentucky  ;  the  West  in  the  war  ; 
need  of  control  of  the  Mississippi ;  separatist  movements)     249 

II.  The  Northwest :  a  National  domain  (Maryland  and  the  ces- 
sions ;  Ordinances  of  '84  and  '87  ;  system  of  land  survey  : 
schools  ;  government  to  1789) 264 

[II.   Meaning  of  the  Frontier  in  American  History  ....     276 

Chapter  VIII.    From  League  to  Union,  1775- 1789 

I.  The  Confederation  of  States  (weaknesses  and  dangers  ;  causes 
analyzed  ;  discussion  of  the  two  types  of  federal  govern- 
ment)   278 

II.   Making  a  New  Constitution 293 

Chapter  IX.    Federalist  Organization,  1789-1800 

I.  Developments  in  Constitutional  Law,  Written  and  Unwritten  .  333 

II.  Hamilton's  "Plan"  for  the  Finances  ("Implied  Powers")      .  343 

III.  Sectional  Lines  .         .         . 348 

IV.  Rise  of  "  Parties  "  (aristocracy  and  democracy)         .         .         .  351 
V.  Foreign  Relations  (Jay  Treaty  and  International  Arbitration)  358 

VI.  Domestic  Dissensions,  1797-1800 366 


PART  III.   NATIONALITY  AND  DEMOCRACY 

Chapter  X.    America  in  1800 

Physical,  social,  and  industrial  conditions ;  hopeful  factors       .         .     378 

Chapter  XI.    Jeff  ersonian  Republicanism 

I.  "  The  Revolution  of  1800"  (political  principles;  the  civil  ser- 
vice ;  attempts  to  republicanize  the  Judiciary ;  Marshall 
and  Jefferson  ;  limitation  of  the  presidential  term)     .         .     396 


Vlll  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


II.  Expansion  and  Development  (Louisiana  Purchase;  constitu- 
tional questions  ;  boundaries ;  explorations  ;  westward 
movement ;  the  steamboat ;   "internal  improvements")    .     408 

III.  The  War  of  1812 423 

IV.  New  England  and  the  Union  in  the  War 428 


Chapter  XII.   A  New  Americanism,  1815-1829 

The  New  Forces 435 

I.    Growth  of  the  West 437 

II.   Foreign  Relations  (Monroe  Doctrine) 447 

III.  National  Policies  :    internal  improvements,  tariff ;  centraliza- 

tion by  the  courts 452 

IV.  Reaction  (the  "  era  of  good-feeling"  ;    faction  ;    sectionalism  ; 

State  sovereignty) 464 

I 
Chapter  XIII.   A  New  Democracy,  1829- 1850 
I.   The  New  Society 

A.  The  "  New  West "  :  one  source  of  new  democracy        .    470 

B.  The  awakening  of  labor :  second  factor  in  democratic 

progress 475 

C.  Moral    and    intellectual     awakening:      third    factor 

(schools  ;  literature  ;  mechanical  invention;  social 
reform  ;  railroads) 491 

II.   The  Political  Narrative  to  1841 

A.  Constitutional  changes  :  manhood  franchise  and  more 

direct  exercise  of  the  franchise  ;  new  position  of 
the  presidency  ;  the  veto  ;  spoils  ;  corresponding 
changes  in  State  and  local  governments        .         .     499 

B.  Protection  —  and  Nullification 506 

C.  The   Government   and    the    Bank    (the   Independent 

Treasury) 512 

D.  Public  Land  Policy  :  attitude  of  Eastern  labor  ;  West- 

ern settlers'  associations  ;  Preemption  Act    .         .     516 

E.  Democracy     Triumphant,     1841  ;      disappearance    of 

aristocratic  politics         .,,...     519 


CONTENTS  ix 


III.  Political  Machinery  :  National  and  local  conventions  and  com- 
mittees ;  spoils  and  bosses ;  congressmen  and  patronage  ; 
the  Gerrymander  ;  Mr.  Speaker  and  congressional  com- 
mittees          523 


Chapter  XIV.    Slavery  and  the  Union 

I.   To  1829:  Slavery  Defensive      .  .        .         .         .         .         .533 

II.    1829-1860:  Slavery  Aggressive 

A.  To  1844:  new  issues  :    slavery  and  White  men's  rights    537 

B.  Slavery  and  expansion  (war  with  Mexico)    .         .         .     545 

C.  Contest  to  control  the  new  territory      ....     549 

D.  The  breakdown  of  compromise  after  1850    (Fugitive 

Slave  Law  and  Dred  Scott  Decision)     .         .         .     558 

E.  Contest  for  supremacy  in  1860  :    Lincoln's  victory  the 

signal  for  secession        ......     572 

III.   North  and  South  in  1860 576 

4 

Chapter  XV.    Nationalism  Victorious,  1861-1876 

I.   The  Civil  War 587 

II.   Reconstruction 618 


PART  IV.   THE  PEOPLE  AND  PRIVILEGE 

Chapter  XVI.   A  Business  Age 
General  Phases 642 

I.  Railroads :  extension  and  consolidation  ;  watered  stock  ;  pool- 
ing and  discriminations  ;  attempts  at  government  regula- 
tion ;  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  the  Courts  ; 
recent  developments 643 

II.   National  Growth .652 

III.  "  Big  Business"  :  trust  and  trust-regulation  ;    special  privilege 

and  public  corruption 657 

IV,  Political  Narrative  to  1896  :  civil  service  ;  the  tariff  ;  free  silver 

and  currency 671 


X  CONTENTS 

Chapter  XVII.   A  World  Power 

PAGE 

Before    1898;    the  Spanish    War;    "Imperialism";    the  Depend- 
encies ;  the  Panama  Canal ;  recent  foreign  relations  .    689 

Chapter  XVIII.   The  People  and  Their  Government  To-Day 

Social  Unrest       .........     703 

I.   The  Labor  Movement 706 

II.    Socialism  and  the  Single  Tax 720 

III.   The  Progressive  Movement 724 

A.  In  the  nation  (Roosevelt ;  election  of  1908  ;  disappoint- 
ment of  Progressives ;  the  Payne-Aldrich  Tariff 
and  the  "  Insurgents  "  ;  split  in  the  Republican 
party ;  elections  of  1910  and  1912)  .  .  .724 
J5.  In  State  and  City  (new  activity  in  these  units ;  Austral- 
ian ballot ;  direct  nominations  ;  corrupt-practices 
acts ;  the  recall ;  direct  legislation  ;  home-rule  for 
cities  ;  direct  election  of  senators,  and  direct  nomi- 
nation of  Presidents.  Oregon  :  a  chapter  in  the 
history  of  Democracy.  Democracy  and  our  Com- 
mon Life 731 

Appendix 

I.   The  Constitution,  with  Notes  and  Comment      ....     751 
II.   A  Select  List  of  Books  on  American   History  and  Govern- 
ment for  High  Schools 772 

Index 777 


MAPS  AND  PLANS 

MAP  PAGE 

1.  Lines  of  Equal  Temperature  for  the  Northern  Hemisphere         .        2 

2.  Indian  Portages  and  French  Posts  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

Full  page,  colored facing  8 

3.  "Virginia,"  1606-1608 22 

4.  Possible  "Virginias"  of  1609 27 

5.  Settled  Area  in  Virginia  in  1624 30 

6.  Virginia  and  "  New  England  "  in  1620 51 

7.  English  America  in  1660.     Full  page,  colored     .         .       facing  119 

8.  The  Watercourse  Fall  Line 144 

9.  European    Possessions    in   America   at  Three   Periods,   1664- 

1689,    1713-1754,    1773-1775;    three    maps.     Full    page, 
colored facing    147 

10.  Colonial  Governments,  Charter,  Proprietary,  and  Royal,  at  Two 

Periods.     Full  page,  colored         ....       facing    150 

11.  Boundaries  proposed  by  France  for  the  United  States  in  1782. 

Full  page,  colored facing    245 

12.  The  United  States  in  1783,  Nominal    and  Actual.     Full  page 

colored facing    246 

13.  Western  Settlement,  1769-1784 256 

14.  The  United  States  in  1783,  State  Claims  and  Cessions.     Full 

page,  colored facing    263 

15.  Proposed  States  by  the  Ordinance  of  1784  ....     265 

16.  The  United  States  Survey :  Bases  and  Meridians  for  the  Old 

Northwest 271 

17.  The  United  States  Survey  :  Towns  and  Ranges  .         .         .272 

18.  The  United  States  Survey  :  a  Township  in  Sections    .         .'       .     273 

19.  The  United  States  Survey  :  a  Section  subdivided        .         .         .     273 

20.  Frontier    Lines    of    1774,    1790,    and    1820.     Full  page,    col- 

ored       facing    275 

xi 


Xll  MAPS  AND  PLANS 


PAGE 


MAP 

21.  Ratification  of  the  Constitution:  Distribution  of  Votes  for  the 

State  Conventions 328 

22.  Physical  Map  of  the  United  States      .         .         .        .        ...  379 

23.  Navigable  Waterways  of  the  United  States         ....  383 

24.  Sectional  Elevation  in  Latitude  40°  North 384 

25.  Movement   of    Centers   of  Population   and  of    Manufactures, 

1790-1910 386 

26.  The  United  States  in  1800.     Full  page,  colored           .       facing  393 

27.  North  America  in  1801.     Full  page,  colored        ."       .       facing  409 

28.  "-West  Florida"  under  Spain,  France,  and  the  United  States 

(three  maps) 415 

29.  Explorations  of  Lewis  and  Clark  and  of  Pike.     Full  page,  col- 

ored       facing  419 

30.  Cessions  of  Indian  Lands  after  the  War  of  1812          .         .         .  439 

31.  Distribution  of  Population  in  1820 445 

32.  The  National  Road 453 

33.  House  Vote  on  the  Tariff  of  1816 458 

34.  House  Vote  on  the  Tariff  of  1824 459 

35.  House  Vote  on  the  Tariff  of  1828 461 

36.  Presidential  Election  of  1824  :  Electoral  Vote     .         .         .         .466 

37.  Presidential  Election  of  1825  :  Vote  in  House  of  Representatives  467 

38.  Presidential  Election  of  1828       .         .         .     '  .         .         .         .468 

39.  Growth  of  the  United  States  from  1800  to  1853.     Full  page, 

colored after  549 

40.  Election  of  1848 552 

41.  Test  Vote  on  the  Compromise  of  1850 557 

42.  Test  Vote  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill 563 

43.  Presidential  Election  of  1856 566 

44.  Presidential  Election  of  1860.     Double  page,  colored            after  574 

45.  Density  of  Population  in  1840 580 

46.  Density  of  Population  in  1860 581 

47.  Railway  Extension,  1830-1860.     Full  page,  colored   .       facing  583 

48.  The  Union  and  the  Confederacy,  1862 597 

49.  Scene  of  the  Civil  War 601 

50.  Emancipation 609 


MAPS  AND  PLANS  xiii 

MAP  PAGE 

51.  Reconstruction 629 

52.  Presidential  Election  of  1876.     Full  page,  colored  .  after    632 
63.   Railway  Extension,  1870-1880.     Full  page,  colored  .  after    642 

54.  The  United  States  of  1913.     Double  page,  colored  .  after    652 

55.  Rate  of  Increase  in  Population,  1900-1910          .  .  .         .654 

56.  The  Philippines •     .  .  .        .698 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE  PAGE 

1 .  Lincoln  (from  French's  Statue  at  Lincoln,  Nebraska)  Frontispiece 

2.  The  Mayflower  Compact 58 

3.  Attempt  to  land  a  Bishop  in  America  (from  a  Colonial  publica- 

tion)      183 

4.  "  We  Dare,"  a  Revolutionary  Handbill  against  the  Stamp  Act .     198 

5.  Facsimile  Heading  from  the  Pennsylvania  Journal  announcing 

its  Decease  because  of  the  Stamp  Act 199 

6.  The  Minute  Man  (from  French's  Statue  at  Concord)  .         .  214 

7.  A  Frontier  Post  (Fort  Steuben)  in  1787 251 

8.  Campus  Martius,  Marietta,  1791 275 

9.  Ratification    of    the    Constitution  —  "Eighth    Federal    Pillar 

reared " .     327 

10.  Cincinnati  in  1810 419 

11.  Photographic  Reproduction  from  the  Boston  Centinel  of  Novem- 

ber 9,  1814  (to  illustrate  the  secession  tendency  in   New 

England) 433 

12.  The  "  Gerrymander " 528 

13.  Antislavery  Handbill  of  1851       .  560 


-^ 


\ 


<* 


AMERICAN   HISTORY   AND 
GOVERNMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

I.   AMERICA  AS   THE   ENGLISH  FOUND   IT 
A.  Geography  of  the  North  Atlantic  Coast 

1.  Geographical  Influence  in  our  Colonial  History  less  than  in 
Early  European  History. — The  character  of  a  country  has  much 
to  do  with  the  life  of  its  people.  We  cannot  understand  the 
early  history  of  the  Greeks  or  Romans  without  studying  care- 
fully the  geography  of  Hellas  and  of  Italy.  But  there  are  two 
reasons  why  the  influence  of  geography  upon  early  American 
history  may  be  treated  briefly. 

a.  American  history  began  when  civilization  was  well  advanced. 
The  earliest  colonists  had  command  enough  over  nature  not  to 
be  controlled  by  her  to  any  such  degree  as  the  primitive  Egyp- 
tians or  Greeks  or  Latins  were.  Nature  counted  for  less,  and 
man  for  more,  than  in  the  early  Old-World  history. 

b.  Tlie  Atlantic  coast  region  (with  which  alone  our  colonial 
history  is  concerned)  was  more  like  the  European  homes  of  the 
colonists  than  any  other  part  of  America  is.  The  life  of  the 
early  settlers,  therefore,  was  less  modified  by  their  transfer  to 
that  region  than  if  they  had  colonized  the  Mississippi  valley  or 
the  Pacific  district.1 

2.  Important  Contrasts  between  Colonial  and  European  Geog- 
raphy. —  At  the  same  time,  there  were  some  striking  differences 
between  the  European  and  the  American  coasts  of  the  Atlantic. 
Two  of  these  contrasts  were  especially  important. 

1  The  western  half  of  the  continent  differs  radically  from  Europe,  and  con- 
tains many  striking  diversities  within  itself ;  but  these  influences  (§  245)  did 
not  affect  our  history  in  its  formative  period. 

1 


2  AMERICA  AS  THE.  ENGLISH  FOUND  IT 

a.  At  a  place  in  America  where  the  average  temperature  is 
the  same  as  for  a  given  part  of  England,  the  extremes  are  greater. 
The  summers  are  hotter  and  the  winters  colder,  and  the  changes 
are  more  sudden. 

This  feature  of  American  climate  involved  the  first  settlers  in  unforeseen 
difficulties.  Thus  Weymouth,  who  came  to  the  coast  of  Maine  in  the 
spring  of  1605,  found  a  beautiful  climate  which  he  described  truly  as  like 
that  of  southern  France  ;  but  the  colonists  who  attempted  settlement  there 
two  years  later  were  cruelly  disappointed  by  a  winter  like  that  of  Nor- 
way (§  45). i 

6.  The  true  zones  of  climate  are  narrower  in  America  than  in 
Europe.     For  a  given  distance  from  north  to  south,  the  climate 


Lines  of  Equal,  Temperature. 

changes  more  rapidly  on  the  American  coast  than  on  the  Euro- 
pean. Between  Nova  Scotia  and  northern  Florida  the  English 
colonists  found  as  great  variations  of  heat  and  cold  as  they 
would  have  found  in  the  Old  World  if  they  had  spread  out  from 
central  Norway  to  the  Sahara.  Of  course  this  variation  was 
many  times  greater  than  they  had  known  in  their  own  little 
island. 


1  See,  too,  the  experience  of  Lord  Baltimore  in  Nova  Scotia  (§  38  and  Source 
Book,  No.  42.) 


GEOGRAPHICAL  INFLUENCES  3 

3.  Two  Other  Physical  Factors  tending  to  the  Growth  of  Sec- 
tionalism. —  This  sharp  difference  in  climate  from  north  to  south 
in  America  helped  to  make  the  Virginian  Englishman  different 
from  his  cousin  whose  father  had  settled  in  New  England. 
Out  of  a  common  stock  each  section  developed  a  distinct 
type.  And  this  divergence  was  reinforced  by  the  different 
pursuits  of  the  two  regions  and  by  lack  of  intercourse. 

a.  Natural  products  varied  from  north  to  south.  Each  section, 
therefore,  had  its  peculiar  industry.  Along  the  southern  coast 
the  fertile  soil  was  suited  to  the  cultivation  of  tobacco  or  rice  or 
cotton,1  in  large  tracts,  by  slaves  or  bond  servants.  The  middle 
district  was  adapted  to  raising  foodstuffs  on  a  large  scale. 
The  north  was  relatively  sterile j  farming  was  not  profitable 
there  except  in  small  holdings  with  trustworthy  "  help  n ;  but 
the  pine  forests  of  that  region,  its  harbors,  and  the  fish  in  its 
seas,  invited  to  other  industries.  These  differences  in  the 
occupations  of  the  inhabitants  north  and  south  resulted  in 
different  habits  of  life  (cf.  §  124). 

b.  Communication  from  north  to  south  teas  difficult.  Colony 
was  divided  from  colony,  or,  at  best,  groups  of  colonies  were 
divided  from  one  another,  by  arms  of  the  sea.  Even  when  two 
colonies  lay  side  by  side  without  intervening  bays,  still  roads 
from  north  to  south  were  lacking.  At  first  the  chief  highways 
were  the  rivers.  These  ran  from  the  mountains  to  the  aea, 
and  the  early  roads  followed  the  same  general  course.  In 
practice,  as  a  rule,  a  colony  found  it  about  as  convenient  to 
hold  communication  with  England  as  with  its  neighbor  on 
either  side.  The  consequent  lack  of  intercourse  made  it  easier 
for  different  types  of  character  to  develop  in  different  sections, 
and  harder  for  these  types  to  understand  or  modify  one 
another. 

4.  Advantages  of  the  English  Location.  — In  many  ways  these  tend- 
encies toward  sectionalism  were  a  disadvantage  to  English  colonization. 

1  Rice  came  into  prominence  with  the  settlement  of  South  Carolina.  Cotton 
appeared  much  later  as  an  important  product.  In  the  early  days,  tobacco  was 
the  staple  for  the  south  (cf.  §  7). 


4  AMERICA  AS  THE   ENGLISH  FOUND  IT 

Still  they  made  for  a  useful  variety  in  colonial  life  ;  and  the  evil  in  them 
was  more  than  offset  by  certain  advantages  that  geography  gave  to  the 
English  over  their  rivals  in  the  contest  for  the  continent.  The  territory 
colonized  by  England  was  at  once  more  accessible  and  more  compact  than 
the  American  possessions  of  Frenchmen  or  Spaniards.  It  was  easier  for 
the  English  to  get  into  America,  and  it  was  not  so  easy  for  them  after- 
ward to  weaken  themselves  by  wide  dispersion. 

a.  (Accessibility.)  The  Atlantic  coast  from  Maine  to  Georgia  was 
marvelously  open  to  the  small  sailing  vessels  of  that  day,  and  it  invited 
European  settlement  much  more  than  did  the  vast  inland  valleys  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  and  the  Mississippi,  where  the  French  cast  their  fortunes. 
Sometimes  we  speak  of  these  great  river  systems  as  "  gateways  to  the 
continent"  ;  and  so  they  are  to  the  interior :  but,  in  the  early  days  of 
colonization,  men  did  not  care  to  go  far  into  the  interior.  They  preferred 
the  fringe  of  the  continent,  where  they  could  keep  closer  touch  with  the 
Old  World.  Moreover,  in  the  districts  near  the  mouths  of  the  great 
rivers,  neither  climate  nor  soil  was  especially  suitable  for  European 
settlers.  The  forest-covered  banks  of  the  lower  Mississippi  were  particu- 
larly repellent. 

b.  (Compactness.)  The  Appalachian  Mountains,  whose  many  rivers 
made  the  Atlantic  region  so  accessible,  kept  the  colonists, -as  they  grew 
numerous,  from  spreading  too  rapidly.  The  English  in  America  found 
themselves  shut  in  between  the  mountains  and  the  sea.  The  Appalachians, 
for  so  slight  a  height,  were  singularly  impassable,  covered  as  they  were 
with  tangled  forests.  Four  streams  broke  the  mountain  wall,  —  the 
Potomac,  Delaware,  Susquehanna,  and  Hudson-Mohawk  ;  but,  in  the 
state  of  engineering  of  that  day,  only  the  last  could  be  used  as  a  road  to 
the  inner  country,  and  that  route  was  closed  against  the  colonists  by  the 
powerful  Iroquois  (§§5-6). 


B.    Natives  and  Native  Products 

5.  Classification  of  Native  Races.  —  To  the  student  of  our 
history  the  natives  are  of  interest  mainly  as  they  affected  the 
course  of  European  settlement.  Between  the  Mississippi  and 
the  Atlantic  the  colonists  found  three  distinct  groups  of  Indian 
peoples, — the  Gulf  Tribes,  the  Algonkins,  and  the  Iroquois. 

a.  The  gulf  tribes  (Choctaws,  Seminoles,  Creeks)  were  the 
most  advanced.     They  were  in  a  rude  agricultural  stage,  and 


NATIVES  AND  NATIVE  PRODUCTS        5 

they  showed  ability  to  pick  up  the  somewhat  better  farming 
methods  of  the  colonists.  These  tribes  were  too  far  south 
and  west  materially  to  affect  white  settlement  until  the  be- 
ginnings of  Georgia  and  Tennessee,  almost  at  the. end  of  the 
colonial  periodfe 

.  b.  The  roamirw  Algonkins  were  the  largest  of  the  three  groups, 
but  also  the  mjit  primitive  and  disunited.  Numbering  from 
75,000  to  100,000  souls,  —  thinly  scattered  in  a  multitude  of 
petty,  mutually  hostile  tribes, — they  "  haunted,  rather  than 
inhabited,  a  vast  hunting  preserve"  stretching  f^B  the  Atlantic 
to  the  Mississippi  and  from  the  Ohio  to  the  far  north.  To  this 
group  belonged  the  ^owhatans,  Delawares,  Narragansetts, 
Pequods,  Mohegans,  and,  indeed,  nearly  all  the  tribes  with 
which  the  early  English  settleiPbame  in  hostile  contact. 

c.  The  Iroquois  Confederacy  was  the  strongest  native  political 
organization  north  of  Mexico.  These  tribes  counted  some 
10,000  people,  and  occupied  what  is  now  western  New  York  in 
comparatively  compact  villages.1 

6.  Important  political  results  followed  from  the  distribution 
of  the  natives.  The  Spaniards  in  South  and  Central  America 
cast  their  adventure  among  races  gentler  than  any  of  the  North 
American  Indians.  Spanish  conquest  was  too  rapid.  The 
continent  was  overrun  faster  than  it  could  be  occupied.  Span- 
ish rule  was  built  upon  the  slavery  of  the  natives.  With  this 
enslaved  population  the  conquerors  mixed  their  blood  until  the 
Spanish  nationality  was  almost  wholly  absorbed.  In  Canada 
the  French,  in  the  weak  days  of  their  settlement,  came  into 
conflict  with  the  formidable  Iroquois ;  and  the  deadly  blows 
inflicted  by  this  warlike  confederacy  played  an  important  part 
in  preventing  French  mastery  of  the  continent  (§§  12-13). 
The  English,  in  their  time  of  weakness,  touched  only  the  dis- 

1  We  have  little  accurate  knowledge  about  the  numbers  of  the  natives. 
Scholars  now  agree  that  those  east  of  the  Mississippi  could  not  have  exceeded 
200,000,  and  that  many  a  single  city  in  our  country  to-day  contains  more 
people  (to  say  nothing  of  the  grade  of  people)  than  dwelt  in  all  North  America 
when  Europeans  first  touched  its  shores. 


6  AMERICA  AS  THE   ENGLISH  FOUND   IT 

united  Algonkins,  by  whom  their  settlement  was  never  seri- 
ously threatened.  At  the  same  time,  the  Algonkins  were 
untamable.  They  could  not  be  enslaved  to  profit;  hence  the 
English  did  not  mix  blood  with  them.  And  they  were  dan- 
gerous enough  to  prevent  the  colonists  from  scattering  rapidly 
into  the  interior. 


These  Indian  foes,  then,  along  with  the  Appalachian  mountains,  were 
the  cause  why,  down  to  the  Revolution,  the  English  colonies  remained 
fairly  compact  ££  4).  Such  compact  settlement  afforded  opportunity  for  a 
truer  civilizationjgbr  more  division  of  labor,  and  for  more  social  intercourse.  It 
made  easier,  also,  the  political  union  of  the  colonies  and  resistance  to  England, 
when  the  time  came.  Both  nature  and  the  natives,  seeming  unkind  to  the 
English  colonist,  were  really  kinder  to  him  than  to  his  French  or  Spanish 
rivals. 

7.  Maize  and  Tobacco.  —  At  a  later  time  the  rich  deposits  of  coal  and 
metals  were  to  influence  history.  At  first  the  two  native  products  of 
supreme  value  were  maize  and  tobacco.  One  of  these  became  the  chief 
food  supply  of  the  colonist ;  the  other  he  exchanged  in  Europe  for  Euro- 
pean goods. 

Maize  (already  the  basis  of  a  rising  culture  among  the  natives)  made 
the  foundation  of  successful  European  settlement.  European  grains  failed 
in  the  new  climate  season  after  season,  while  the  colonist  was  learning  the 
new  conditions.  Moreover,  to  clear  and  prepare  the  soil  for  wheat  took 
much  time.  Maize  was  a  surer  crop  and  needed  less  toil.  The  colonist 
learned  from  the  Indian  to  raise  it,  at  need,  without  even  clearing  the 
forest,  —  merely. girdling  the  trees  to  kill  the  foliage,  and  planting  among 
the  standing  trunks.  It  was  no  accident  that  this  Indian  grain  came  to 
be  called  "  corn,"  the  general  name  for  European  grains. 

And  if  Indian  corn  enabled  the  colonist  to  live  through  the  first  hard 
years,  it  was  tobacco  that  first  made  him  rich  and  enabled  him  to  secure 
European  comforts.  For  the  later  northern  colonies,  the  place  of  tobacco 
was  taken  by  fur,  fish,  and  lumber. 

8.  Economic  Dependence  upon  the  Natives.  —  The  economic  develop- 
ment of  the  colonies  was  intimately  connected  with  the  natives.  Will- 
ingly or  unwillingly,  the  Indians  furnished  the  first  settlements  with  the 
corn  that  warded  off  starvation.  Soon  they  taught  the  colonists  to  plant 
both  corn  and  tobacco.  They  were  the  chief  means  of  securing  furs. 
Their  wampum,  at  times,  made  an  important  part  of  colonial  money. 
The  forest  trails,  worn  into  deep  paths  by  many  generations  of  Red  men, 


SPAIN   IN  AMERICA  7 

became  the  iine  of  future  highways.1  The  routes  followed  by  the  birch 
canoe  became  the  lines  of  water  communication  for  White  men.  And 
the  stations  for  exchange  of  furs  at  the  junction  of  leading  trails  and  water- 
ways, marked  out  by  native  surveyors  and  pilots,  became  the  sites  of 
mighty  cities,  like  Milwaukee,  Chicago,  St.  Louis,  and  Duluth. 

II.     THE    EUROPEAN   RIVALS   OF   ENGLAND 
A.     Spain 

9.  Progress  and  Early  Decay.  —  After  the  crusades,  Medieval 
Europe  came  to  depend  upon  Asiatic  articles  for  luxury  and 
for  much  of  daily  comfort.  Trade,  to  supply  these  commod- 
ities, was  carried  on  by  way  of  the  Black  Sea  or  by  caravans 
from  the  southeastern  Mediterranean  into  central  Asia.  In  the 
fifteenth  century  the  gradual  rise  of  the  Turks  in  Asia  Minor 
almost  closed  these  routes.  To  get  into  the  rear  of  the  Turkish 
barbarians,  Europe,  just  then  astir  with  an  intellectual  awaken- 
ing, sought  new  routes.  Portugal  found  one  to  the  south 
around  Africa.  Columbus,  in  the  interest  of  Spain,  tried  a 
still  bolder  western  route  — and  stumbled  upon  America  in  his 
path.2 

These  discoveries  marked  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury. TJie  next  century,  so  far  as  the  New  World  ivas  con- 
cerned, was  Spain's.  The  story  of  her  conquest  is  a  tale  of 
heroic  endeavor  and  almost  superhuman  endurance,  marred  by 
revolting  ferocity.  The  details,  as  a  Spanish  chronicler  said, 
are  "  all  horrid  transactions,  nothing  pleasant  in  any  of  them." 
Not  till  twenty  years  after  the  discovery,  did  the  Spaniards  ad- 
vance to  the  mainland  for  settlement ;  but,  once  begun,  her 
handfuls  of  adventurers  swooped  north  and  south,  until,  by 
1550,  she  held  not  only  all   South  America  (save  Portugal's 

1  Cf.  map  facing  page  8.  The  New  York  Central  Railroad  follows  the  old 
Iroquois  trail  from  Lake  Erie  to  the  Hudson ;  and  in  Minneapolis  one  of  the 
finest  streets  (Hennepin  Avenue)  is  an  ancient  Indian  trail  from  the  neighbor- 
ing Lake  Harriet  to  a  point  on  the  Mississippi  a  little  above  the  Falls  of  St. 
Anthony. 

-  Modern  History,  §§  89,  103  (with  notes),  196,  197. 


8  EUROPEAN  RIVALS  OF  ENGLAND 

Brazil),  but  also  all  Central  America,  Mexico,  the  Californias 
far  up  the  Pacific  coast,  and  the  FJoridas.  The  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  the  Caribbean  were  Spanish  lakes,  and  the  whole  Pacific 
was  a  "closed  sea."  For  other  Europeans  to  intrude  into  these 
waters  was  a  crime,  to  be  punished  by  death.  Not  content 
with  this  huge  empire  on  land  and  sea,  Spain  was  planning 
grandly  to  occupy  the  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Appalachian 
slope,  when  she  received  a  fatal  check  in  Europe,  at  the  hand 
of  England,  in  the  ruin  of  her  "Invincible  Armada"  (1588). * 
That  event  in  Europe  marks  a  parting  of  the  ways  in 
American  colonization.  Dread  of  Spain  waned,  and  other 
European  peoples  were  left  free  to  try  their  fortunes  in  North 
America.  During  the  next  half  century,  every  seaboard  country 
of  western  Europe  made  attempts  at  colonizing  the  Atlantic 
coast ;  but  the  real  rivals,  then  and  for  long  after,  were  France 
and  England. 

>  B.     The  French  in  America 

10.  Outline  of  the  Story.  —  After  a  quarter  century  of  exploration, 
a  French  colony  was  founded  by  Champlain  at  Quebec  in  1608.  Ex- 
plorers, missionaries,  and  traders  soon  traversed  the  Great  Lakes  and 
established  stations  at  various  points  still  known  by  French  names.  In 
1682,  after  years  of  splendid  effort,  LaSalle  succeeded  in  following  the 
Mississippi  to  the  Gulf,  setting  up  a  French  claim  to  the  entire  valley. 
In  later  years  New  France  consisted  of  the  colony  on  the  St.  Lawrence  in 
the  far  north,  and  the  semi-tropical  colony  of  New  Orleans,  joined  to  each 
other  by  a  slight  chain  of  trading  posts  and  military  stations  along  the  in- 
terior waterways,  —  Detroit,  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  Vincennes,  Kaskaskia,  St. 
Louis,  and  the  like. 

From  the  beginning  of  this  colonization,  it  was  apparent  that  France 
and  England  were  rivals  for  the  control  of  eastern  North  America ;  but 
the  real  struggle  between  them  did  not  begin  until  1689.  The  contest 
then  lasted,  in  a  series  of  wars,  three  quarters  of  a  century,  until  1763, 
when  France  was  thrust  out  of  the  continent  (§  114).  The  story  is  a 
tale  of  romantic  heroism  and  charm  ;  but  here  we  can  note  only  certain 
characteristics  of  New  France  which  helped  to  determine  the  result. 

1  Modern  History,  §  223.  This  defeat  alone  did  not  ruin  the  might  of  Spain. 
Internal  causes  were  at  work  to  do  that.  The  defeat  checked  her  advance  for 
the  moment ;  and  internal  decay  prevented  her  resuming  that  advance. 


sv 


FRANCE   IN  AMERICA  9 

11.  French  Advantages.  —  At  home  French  statesmen  aimed 
deliberately  to  build  a  French  empire  in  America.  The  inspir- 
ing thought  of  such  an  empire  animated  also  French  explorers 
in  the  wilderness,  —  splendid  patriots  like  Cham  plain,  Ribault, 
and  LaSalle.  France,  too,  sent  forth  the  most  zealous  of  mis- 
sionaries to  convert  the  savages.  TJiese  two  mighty  motives, 
patriotism  and  missionary  zeal,  played  a  more  prominent  part 
in  founding  New  France  than  in  establishing  either  Spanish  or 
English  colonies.  Moreover,  the  French  could  deal  with  the 
natives  better  than  the  less  sympathetic  English  could;  and 
their  leaders  were  men  of  broad  and  far-reaching  views. 

"The  French  leaders  showed  a  capacity  for  understanding  the  large 
questions  of  political  geography  .  .  .  and  a  genius  for  exploration,  and  a 
talent  for  dominion,  in  singular  contrast  with  the  blundering,  narrow 
processes  of  their  English  rivals."  —  Parkman. 

12.  External  Causes  of  Failure.  —  Why,  then,  did  France  fail  ? 
Two  kinds  of  weakness  may  be  noted,  —  one  external  and  ac- 
cidental, the  other  inherent  in  the  nature  of  French  colonization 
(§  14).     Of  the  first  kind,  there  are  two  striking  particulars. 

a.  In  the  south  the  Spaniards  from  St.  Augustine  barbarously 
exterminated  a  French  attempt  to  colonize  the  Atlantic  coast. 

b.  In  the  north  the  Iroquois  were  relentless  foes.  Curiously 
enough,  it  was  the  ability  of  the  French  to  make  friends  with 
the  natives  which  brought  upon  them  this  terrible  scourge. 
Champlain  (§  10)  came  first  in  touch  with  Algonkin  tribes,  and 
was  warmly  received  by  them.  These  tribes  were  at  war  with 
the  Iroquois.  Champlain  accompanied  his  new  allies  on  the 
warpath,  and  so  incurred  Iroquois  hatred  for  New  France. 

13.  The  Iroquois  hindered  French  success  in  four  distinct  ways. 

a.  They  annihilated  the  Huron  Indians,  whom  French  missionaries, 
after  many  heroic  martyrdoms,  had  christianized,  and  upon  whom  the 
French  had  hoped  to  build  a  native  civilization. 

b.  At  times  they  struck  terrible  blows  at  New  France  itself.1 

1  Mrs.  Catherwood's  Romance  of  Dollard  tells  the  glorious  story  of  one 
critical  conflict.  Dollard  and  his  band  of  heroes  were  to  Quebec  what  Leon- 
idas  and  his  Three  Hundred  were  to  Greece. 


10  EUROPEAN  RIVALS  OF  ENGLAND 

c  They  shielded  the  English  colonies,  during  their  weakness,  from 
French  attack.  In  the  early  intercolonial  struggles,  the  French  in 
Canada  could  strike  at  the  English  only  by  way  of  the  route  followed 
later  by  Burgoyne.  Everywhere  else  the  wilderness  between  Canada 
and  the  English  settlements  was  impassable  for  military  forces  larger 
than  prowling  bands,  which  could  do  no  permanent  harm  ;  and  this  one 
possible  military  road  was  warded  by  the  Iroquois.  * 

d.  The  hostility  of  the  Iroquois  changed  the  whole  course  of  French 
exploration,  turning  it  to  the  north.  The  home  of  the  confederacy  was 
in  western  New  York,  —  "  the  military  key  to  the  eastern  half  of  the 
continent."  l  It  commanded  the  headwaters  of  the  Delaware,  Susque- 
hanna, and  Mohawk-Hudson  system,  and  the  portage  at  Niagara  from 
Erie  to  Ontario,  as  well  as  part  of  the  headwaters  of  the  Ohio.  The 
French,  with  their  keen  eye  for  military  geography  (§  11  close),  would 
certainly  have  seized  this  position  at  any  cost,  if  they  had  been  able  to 
learn  its  character.  If  they  had  then  fortified  the  Ohio  by  a  chain  of 
posts,  as  they  did  their  other  waterways,  this  would  have  buttressed  their 
position  on  the  Mississippi  and  the  Lakes  so  strongly  as  almost  to  defy 
attack.  As  things  really  were,  they  did  not  learn  the  importance  of  the 
Ohio  valley  until  too  late.  Montreal  was  founded  as  early  as  1611  ;  but 
the  French  traders,  instead  of  proceeding  to  the  interior  by  the  upper 
St.  Lawrence  and  Lake  Erie,  turned  up  the  Ottawa,  so  as  to  avoid  the 
Iroquois,  and  reached  Lake  Huron  by  portage  from  Nipissing.  Lake 
Erie  was  the  last,  instead  of  the  first,  of  the  Lakes  to  be  explored.  It 
was  practically  unused  until  after  1700,  and  the  country  to  the  south  re- 
mained unknown  even  longer.2  When  the  French  awakened  to  its  value, 
the  slower  but  more  numerous  English  traders  had  begun  to  push  into  the 
Ohio  valley,  and  the  great  opportunity  for  France  was  already  lost. 

14.  The  inherent  weakness  in  French  colonization,  however, 
was  the  fundamental  cause  of  French  failure.  Three  essentials 
were  lacking :  homes,  individual  enterprise,  and  political  life. 

a.  New  France  ivas  not  a  country  of  homes  or  of  agriculture. 
Except  for  a  few  leaders  and  the  missionaries,  the  settlers  were 
either  unprogressive  peasants  or  reckless  adventurers.  For 
the  most  part  they  did  not  bring  families,  and  they  remained 
unmarried  or  chose  Indian  wives.     Agriculture  was  the  only 

1  So  Winfield  Scott  called  it,  and  Ulysses  S.  Grant  afterward. 

2  Navigation  was  by  fleets  of  canoes,  which  had  to  land  frequently.  The 
French  could  not  follow  the  southern  shore  of  Lake  Erie,  nor  use  the  portage 
of  Niagara,  because  the  Iroquois  controlled  the  shores. 


FRANCE    IN   AMERICA  11 

safe  basis  for  a  permanent  colony ;  but  these  colonists  were 
averse  to  regular  labor.  Instead,  they  turned  to  trapping  and 
the  fur  trade,  and  tended  to  adopt  Indian  habits. 

The  French  government  in  Europe  sought  in  vain  to  remedy  this 
by  sending  over  cargoes  of  "king's  girls,"  and  by  offering  bonuses  for 
early  marriages  and  large  families.  Parkman's  Old  Begime  in  Canada 
(ch.  xiii)  gives  quaint  details.  The  easiest  remedy  would  have  been  to 
permit  the  Huguenots  x  to  come  to  America.  They  were  the  most  skillful 
artisans  and  agriculturalists  of  France,  and  they  had  shown  some  ability 
in  self-government.  Moreover,  they  were  anxious  to  come,  and  to  bring 
their  families.  But  the  government,  which  lavished  money  in  sending 
out  undesirable  emigrants,  refused  to  allow  these  heretics  to  establish  a 
state  in  America. 

b.  Government  paternalism  smothered  private  enterprise  in 
industry.  In  all  economic  matters  New  France  was  taught  to 
depend  not  upon  herself,  but  upon  the  aid  and  direction  of  a 
government  three  thousand  miles  away.  Trade  was  shackled 
by  silly  restrictions,  and  hampered  almost  as  much  by  silly 
encouragements.  The  rulers  did  everything;  the  people  did 
nothing.  Aid  was  constantly  asked  from  the  king.  "  Send 
us  money  to  build  storehouses,"  ran  the  begging  letters  of 
Canadian  officials ;  "  Send  us  a  teacher  to  make  sailors " ; 
"  We  want  a  surgeon  " ;  and  so,  at  various  times,  requests  for 
brickmakers,  ironworkers,  pilots,  and  other  skilled  workers. 
Such  requests  were  usually  granted ;  but  New  France  did  not 
learn  to  walk  alone. 

c.  Political  life  was  lacking.  In  the  seventeenth  century 
France  itself  was  a  centralized  despotism  ;2  and  in  New  France 
(to  use  the  phrase  of  Tocqueville)  "this  deformity  was  seen 
magnified  as  through  a  microscope."  No  public  meetings  were 
permitted  without  a  special  license ;  and  such  meetings,  when 
held,  could  take  no  action  worth  while.  All  sorts  of  matters, 
like  the  regulation  of  inns  and  of  pew  rent,  the  order  in  which 
dignitaries  should  sit  in  church,  the  keeping  of  dogs  and  of 
cattle,  the  pay  of   chimney  sweeps,  were  dealt   with  not  by 


Modem  History,  §§  226,  229,  260,  282.  2  j0^  §§  298,  299. 


12  EUROPEAN  RIVALS  OF  ENGLAND 

local  legislatures  or  village  councils,  but  by  ordinances  of  the 
governors  at  Quebec,  who  were  sent  over  by  the  French  king. 
"  It  is  of  the  greatest  importance,"  wrote  one  official,  "  that  the 
people  should  not  be  at  liberty  to  speak  their  minds."  Worse 
than  this,  —  the  people  had  no  mind  to  speak. 

It  is  not  true  that  a  new  country  of  necessity  breeds  freedom.  What 
a  frontier  life  does  is  to  emphasize  former  tendencies.  As  Theodore  Roose- 
velt puts  it,  the  frontier  takes  two  men  only  a  little  way  apart  morally 
in  an  old  community,  and  makes  one  of  them  a  hero,  and  the  other  a 
horse  thief.  So  it  deals  with  nations.  The  French  and  the  Spanish 
colonies  developed  despotic  tendencies  in  America,  and  the  English 
colonies  developed  political  liberty,  —  each  progressing  along  the  direction 
of  earlier  movement  at  home. 

15.  A  Striking  Illustration.  —  In  1672,  Frontenac,  the  greatest 
governor  of  New  France,  tried  to  introduce  the  elements  of  self-govern- 
ment. He  provided  a  system  of  "estates"  to  advise  with  him, — a 
gathering  of  clergy,  nobles,  and  commons  (citizens  and  merchants)  ;  and 
he  ordered  that  Quebec  should  have  a  sort  of  town  meeting  twice  a  year 
to  elect  aldermen  and  to  discuss  public  business.  The  home  government 
sternly  disapproved  these  mild  innovations,  directing  Frontenac  to  re- 
member that  it  was  "proper  that  each  should  speak  for  himself,  and  no 
one  for  the  whole  "  ;  and  the  plan  fell  to  pieces.  The  significant  thing  is, 
the  people  eared  so  little  for  it  that  they  made  no  effort  to  save  it.  When 
some  such  plan  was  introduced  in  Virginia  (which  also,  during  its  first 
years,  had  lacked  such  privileges),  no  mere  paper  decree  could  take  it 
away  again  (§§  29,  30,  33,  34). 

16.  Conclusion.  —  Spite  of  all  the  fostering  care  of  the  home 
government,  when  the  final  contest  for  the  continent  began  in 
1754,  France,  with  a  home  population  three  times  as  large  as 
England's,  had  less  than  one  twentieth  as  many  colonists  in 
America  (60,000  to  1,300,000).  French  colonization  did  not 
produce  numbers. 

Moreover,  despite  the  noble  patriotism  of  great  leaders,  the 
mass  of  the  French  colonists  possessed  too  little  political 
activity  to  care  much  what  country  they  belonged  to,  so  long 
as  they  were  treated  decently.  Centralization  did  enable  a 
capable  governor  to  wield  effectively  all  the  resources  of  the 


FRANCE   IN  AMERICA  13 

colony;1  while  with  the  English  there  were  disastrous  jealousies 
and  delays  interminable.  But  the  English  needed  only  one 
decisive  victory.  Had  Montcalm  conquered  Wolfe,  arid  had 
he  been  able  to  occupy  Boston  and  New  York,  he  could  not 
have  held  them  even  as  long  as  King  George  did  a  few  years 
later;  but  on  the  other  hand,  Wolfe's  victory  at  Quebec  settled 
forever  the  fate  of  the  continent.  Two  systems  were  at  war ; 
and,  in  the  long  run,  the  despotic  governor  proved  no  match 
for  the  democratic  town  meeting.  The  lack  of  political  vitality 
and  of  individualism  in  industry  was  the  fatal  weakness  of 
New  France.  The  opposite  qualities  were  to  make  the  English 
successful.  Says  John  Fiske,  —  "  It  is  to  the  self-government  of 
England,  and  to  no  lesser  cause,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  secret 
of  that  boundless  vitality  which  has  given  to  men  of  English 
speech  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  an  inheritance" 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  plan  of  this  volume  forbids  extended 
class  work  upon  the  topics  touched  in  this  Introduction ;  but  a  brief 
bibliography  is  added  for  the  student  who  desires  to  read  further. 

On  the  Discovery  and  its  Period.  —  Payne,  "  Age  of  Discovery"  in 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  I  (an  admirable  treatment  in  thirty  pages)  ; 
Fiske,  Discovery  of  America;  Cheyney,  European  Background  of 
American  History. 

On  England's  Rivals.  —  Moses,  Spanish  Bule  in  America  ;  Bourne, 
Spain  in  America;  Thwaites,  France  in  America ;  Parkman's  Histories, 
especially,  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,  Half  Century  of  Conflict,  and  The  Old 
Begime  in  Canada.  Gilbert  Parker's  earlier  stories,  especially  The  Trail 
of  the  Sword  and  parts  of  Pierre  and  His  People,  picture  vividly  the 
Canadian  colonial  type. 

Exercise. — Brief,  rapid  answers  (oral  or  written)  on  the  following 
topics,  —  the  answers  to  be  given  concisely  and,  as  a  rule,  in  single  words 
or  phrases,  rather  than  in  sentences. 

1  This  advantage  was  offset  in  part  by  the  tendency  to  corruption  which 
always  threatens  such  a  bureaucratic  system.  Says  Parkman  {Montcalm  and 
Wolfe,  II,  30),  "Canada  was  the  prey  of  official  jackals."  Parkman  gives 
many  illustrations  of  official  corruption  in  New  France  at  critical  moments. 
For  other  illustrations,  see  Thwaites'  France  in  America,  220-221.  The 
student  will  he  reminded  of  the  way  in  which  like  causes  weakened  Russia 
at  the  opening  of  her  war  with  Japan. 


14  EUROPEAN   RIVALS  OF  ENGLAND 

1.  Two  reasons  why  geography  is  less  important  in  the  study  of  Ameri- 
can than  of  early  European  history  ?  2.  Two  contrasts  between  the 
Atlantic  coast  of  Europe  and  that  of  North  America  which  affected 
colonization  materially  ?  3.  How  did  each  of  these  factors  work  ? 
4.  Two  advantages  from  physical  geography  to  English  colonization,  as 
compared  with  French  or  Spanish  colonization?  {Two  words  suffice 
for  this  answer.)  5.  Three  distinct  advantages  possessed  by  the  French 
in  their  attempt  to  occupy  America  ?  6.  Three  causes  of  French  failure? 
9.   Three  distinct  ways  in  which  the  Iroquois  hindered  French  success  ? 

(Let  each  student  present  four  or  five  more  questions  of  similar  character 
and  weight.) 


' 


- 

/ 


^ 


PART   I 

THE  ENGLISH  IN  AMEKIOA 
CHAPTER   I 

SOUTHERN    COLONIES    TO    1660 

I.    CONDITIONS   AND   MOTIVES   OF   COLONIZATION 

"Virginia  was  founded  by  a  great  liberal  movement  aiming  at  the 
spread  of  English  freedom  and  of  English  empire.'11  —  Henry  Adams. 

Through  the  first  half  century  of  colonization,  the  English  colonies 
were  practically  an  outlying  part  of  England.  The  settlers  were  not  yet 
Americans.    They  were  enterprising  Englishmen  in  new  surroundings. 

(§§  17-18  should  be  accompanied  by  a  careful  reading  of  Nos.  2-14  in 
West's  Source  Book.  With  regard  to  the  use  of  that  volume,  students 
and  teacher  may,  at  this  point,  consult  the  bibliography  on  page  4$i 
and  see  "  Foreword.'''') 

17.  Motives  of  the  English  Promoters.  —  In  studying  the 
motives  of  English  colonization,  it  is  well  to  look  separately 
at  the  motives  of  the  settlers  and  at  those  of  the  Englishmen 
at  home  who  helped  generously  with  their  energies  and 
fortunes.  First,  then,  of  these  Englishmen  in  the  Old 
World. 

a.  Patriotism.  During  the  last  quarter  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  when  Elizabeth's  reign  was  half  completed,  England 
entered  openly  upon  a  daring  rivalry  with  the  overshadowing 
might  of  Spain.  Out  of  that  rivalry,  English  America  was 
born.  Reckless  and  picturesque  freebooters,  like  Drake  and 
Hawkins,  sought  profit  and  honor  for  themselves,  and  injury 
to  the  foe,  by  raiding  the  Spanish  Main.  More  far-sighted 
statesmen,  like  Raleigh,  saw  that  English  colonies  in  America 

15 


16  MOTIVES  OF  ENGLISH  COLONIZATION 

would  be  "  a  great  bridle  to  the  Indies  of  the  Kinge  of  Spaine" 1 
and  began  deliberate  attempts  so  to  "put  a  byt  in  the  anchent 
enyniy's  mouth." 2 

The  first  attempts  were  ruined  by  the  death  struggle  with 
the  Spanish  Armada  (§  21)  and  by  the  long  war  that  followed. 
Then  James  I  became  king  (1603)  and  sought  Spanish  friend- 
ship ;  and,  ere  long,  Englishmen  began  to  feel  their  chance  for 
empire  slipping  through  their  fingers.  But  splendid  memories 
of  the  great  Elizabethan  days  still  stirred  men's  hearts ;  and, 
as  a  protest  against  the  dastard  Stuart  policy  in  Europe,  the 
fever  for  colonization  awoke  again  in  the  hearts  of  the  people. 
Men  said  a  terrible  mistake  had  been  made  when  Henry  VII 
refused  to  adopt  the  enterprise  of  Columbus ;  and  they  insisted 
vehemently  that  England  should  not  now  abandon  Virginia,  — 
"this  one  enterprise  left  unto  these  days."  An  enthusiastic 
determination  to  extend  the  glories  of  English  freedom  and  to 
check  Spanish  tyranny  runs  through  the  literature  and  pam- 
phlets of  the  early  seventeenth  century,  in  the  days  when 
Jamestown  was  being  founded. 

b.  Missionary  zeal.  A  second  motive  was  a  desire  to  chris- 
tianize the  savages.  This  purpose  faded  soon  for  most  of  the 
actual  settlers  (whose  intercourse  with  the  natives  placed  them 
quickly  in  the  stern  attitude  of  our  later  frontiersmen) ;  but  it 
continued  long  to  be  a  powerful  factor  in  England.  The  great 
clergymen  who  guided  the  Church  of  England  (then  recently 
cut  off  from  Rome)  could  not  rest  content  with  "this  little 
English  paddock,"  while  Rome  was  winning  new  continents 


i  This  phrase  heads  a  chapter  in  a  pamphlet  on  Western  Planting  written 
in  1584,  at  Raleigh's  request,  by  Richard  Hakluyt.  The  text  contains  these 
words:  " If  you  touch  him  [Spain]  in  the  Indies,  you  touch  him  in  the  apple 
of  his  eye;  for,  take  away  his  treasure,  which  is  nervus  belli,  and  which  he 
has  almost  wholly  out  of  his  West  Indies,  —  his  olde  bandes  of  souldiers  will 
soon  be  dissolved,  his  purposes  defeated,  his  power  and  strength  diminished, 
his  pride  abated,  and  his  tyranie  utterly  suppressed."  See  Source  Book, 
No.  3,  for  more  of  this  passage. 

2  This  more  concise  figure  was  used  by  Dale,  governor  of  Virginia,  thirty 
years  after  Raleigh's  failure. 


THE  COLONISTS  17 

to  herself  by  her  devoted  missionaries ;  nor  could  these  good 
churchmen  help  squirming  under  the  Catholic's  taunt  that  the 
Koman  Church  alone  converted  the  heathen.1  The  London 
Company,  which  sent  out  the  Jamestown  colony,  was,  in  one 
leading  aspect,  a  foreign  missionary  society,  and  the  first  such 
society  in  the  Protestant  world.  It  was  this  character  of  the 
Company  that  brought  it  some  of  its  leading  members,  like  the 
two  Ferrars. 2  This,  too,  brought  it  a  general  moral  support, 
and  many  gifts  of  money. 3 

c.  Financial  gain.  The  colonizing  Company  was  a  commer- 
cial partnership,  and  it  hoped  for  financial  gain.  For  most 
stockholders  this  hope  was  a  motive,  but  to  few  was  it  the  sole 
motive.  Many,  too,  who  believed  in  ultimate  profits,  under- 
stood that  there  was  little  likelihood  of  gain  in  their  own  life- 
time. And  certainly  it  was  not  greed,  but  high  enthusiasms, 
which,  in  days  of  discouragement  and  distress,  brought  the 
noblest  of  Englishmen  by  hundreds  to  the  rescue  of  the  enter- 
prise and  so  finally  carried  it  to  success.4 

18.  Motives  of  the  Colonists.  —  In  1600,  England  needed  an 
outlet  for  her  crowded  people.  Population  had  doubled  in  the 
long  peace  since  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  but  the  condition  of 
the  small  farmers  (the  bulk  of  the  people)  had  retrograded.* 
The  island  had  only  a  tenth  as  many  inhabitants  as  it  has 
to-day ;  but,  with  the  poor  industrial  system  of  that  age,  it  cared 

1  "  Yea,"  said  the  worthy  Hakluyt  with  chagrin,  "  I  myself  have  been  de- 
manded of  them  how  many  infidels  have  been  by  us  converted."  Cf.  note 
above,  and  see  Source  Book,  No.  3. 

2  Special  topic ;  and  see  references  to  the  Ferrars  in  Source  Book,  Nos.  26,  28. 
8  The  Source  Book  (No.  26,  c)  gives  the  list  for  one  year,  with  comment. 

4  Cf .  §  25.  Francis  Bacon,  one  of  the  stockholders  in  the  London  Company, 
in  his  essay  "  On  Plantations,"  declares  that  "  colonies  are  like  trees ;  returns 
must  not  be  looked  for  under  twenty  years."  The  pamphlets  by  the  Company 
and  by  its  friends,  asking  for  subscriptions  to  stock,  did  not  place  emphasis 
on  the  prospects  of  large  dividends,  but  rather  on  the  meanness  and  avarice 
of  the  man  who  would  "  save  "  his  money  when  such  glorious  issues  were  at 
stake  as  the  enlargement  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  extension  of  English 
empire.    See  Source  Book,  Nos.  5-7,  for  illustrations. 

6  Cf.  Modern  History,  §§  233-234.  Says  William  Harrison  (1577)  of  these 
yeomen,  "  These  were  they  that  in  times  past  made  all  France  afraid." 


18  MOTIVES  OF  ENGLISH   COLONIZATION 

for  its  four  millions  less  efficiently  than  it  cares  now  for  forty 
millions. 

The  hard-pressed  yeomanry,  who  found  material  conditions 
cruel  at  home,  furnished  most  of  the  manual  labor  in  the 
colonies ;  but  there  was  need  also  of  captains  and  capitalists. 
Happily,  new  conditions  in  England  at  the  opening  of  the 
seventeenth  century  turned  some  of  the  best  elements  of  the 
middle  class  toward  American  adventure.  Until  the  peace 
with  Spain  (1604),  the  high-spirited  youth,  and  especially  the 
younger  sons  of  gentry  families  for  whom  there  was  no  career 
at  home,  fought  in  the  Low  Countries  for  Dutch  independence, 
or  made  the  "  gentlemen  adventurers,"  who,  under  Drake, 
Hawkins,  and  their  fellows,  paralyzed  the  vast  domain  of  New 
Spain  with  fear.  When  peace  came,  these  men  sought  occupa- 
tion and  fortune  in  colonizing  America.  In  the  rapid  economic 
changes  of  the  time,  too,  some  old  families  found  themselves 
impoverished,1  or  at  least  unable  to  keep  sail  with  their  former 
associates;  and  such  men  often  preferred  leadership  in  the 
New  World  to  taking  in  sail  at  home.  These  young  adven- 
turers and  broken  gentlemen  were  unaccustomed  to  industry 
and  were  restless  under  discipline;  and  some  of  them  drew 
down  the  wrath  of  stern  commanders  like  Captain  John  Smith. 
But  they  were  of  "  that  restless,  pushing  material  of  which 
the  world's  best  pathfinders  have  ever  been  made  " ;  and,  when 
they  had  learned  somewhat  the  needs  of  frontier  life,  their 
pluck  and  endurance  made  them  admirable  colonists.2 

It  must  be  remembered  also  that  among  the  settlers  there  were  always 
a  few  rare  men  animated  wholly  by  patriotic  devotion  or  by  religious  zeal 
or  by  a  lofty  spirit  of  adventure.  Even  the  first  Jamestown  expedition 
(not  a  fair  sample,  either)  included,  among  its  104  souls,  Bartholomew 
Gosnold,  a  knightly  survivor  of  the  spacious  Elizabethan  days;  and 
doughty  John  Smith,  a  robust  hero,  "even  though  his  imagination  did 
sometimes  transcend  the  narrow  limits  of  fact"  ;    and  the  gentle  and 

1  Read  Channing's  United  States,  I,  143-144. 

2  The  same  class  have  made  the  best  of  pioneers  in  later  times  on  our 
western  prairies  and  in  the  Australian  bush.  For  contemporary  testimony 
as  to  their  worth  in  Virginia,  see  Source  Book,  No.  19. 


THE   COLONISTS  19 

lovable  churchman,  Robert  Hunt ;  to  say  nothing  of  worthies  such  as 
Percy  and  Newport.  The  modern  community  which,  for  each  twenty 
souls,  can  show  one  built  on  a  mold  like  these  is  not  unhappy.  The  next 
three  years,  too,  saw  in  Virginia  many  another  gallant  gentleman,  like 
Thomas  Gates,  John  Rolfe,  and  Francis  West. 

On  the  whole,  no  doubt,  the  chief  loadstone  was  some  wild 
dream  of  wealth  {Source  Book,  Nos.  8-9).  In  the  first  colonies, 
too,  the  expectations  of  sudden  riches  were  more  extravagant 
than  in  later  attempts,  and  led  for  a  time  to  more  disastrous 
neglect  of  true  interests.  Still  the  motive  was  a  proper  one. 
It  calls  for  no  sneer.  It  was  essentially  the  same  desire  to  . 
better  one's  condition  which  in  a  later  century  lured  the  descend- 
ants of  the  first  settlers  to  people  the  continent  from  the 
Appalachians  to  the  Golden  Gate. 

Moreover,  the  motive  was  not  mere  greed.  Mingled  with  that 
element  was  a  vision  of  romance  and  adventure.  The  youth 
was  drawn  partly  by  the  glitter  of  gold,  but  quite  as  much  by 
the  mystery  of  new  lands  bosomed  in  the  beauty  of  unknown 
seas.  And,  best  of  all,  these  motives  of  gain  and  of  noble 
adventure  were  infused  with  a  high  patriotism.  Englishmen 
knew  that  in  building  their  own  fortunes  on  that  distant  fron- 
tier, just  as  truly  as  when  they  had  trod  the  deck  of  Drake's 
ship,  they  were  widening  the  power  of  the  little  home  island, 
which  they  rightly  believed  to  be  the  world's  best  hope.1 

19.  Difficulty  and  Cost.  —  To  found  a  colony  in  the  seven- 7^  J 
teenth  century  was  more  difficult  than  we  can  well  comprehend  -T^ 
to-day.  The  mere  outlay  of  money  was  enormous  for  those 
times.  Ships  had  little  storage  room,  and  freights  were  high. 
yIo  carry  a  man  from  England  to  America  cost  from  £10  to 
£12,  or  about  $300  in  our  values.2  To  provide  his  outfit,  and 
to  support  him -through  the  first  season,  until  he  could  raise 

1  At  the  end  of  a  half  century,  other  motives  were  to  bring  to  Virginia  a 
notable  immigration  (§  102),  but  not  until  the  forces  outlined  above  had 
already  made  a  noble  frontier  state. 

2  Money  was  worth  five  or  six  times  as  much  as  now.  And  the  best  accom- 
modations for  an  ocean  passage  that  money  could  buy  were  inferior  to 
modern  steerage  accommodations. 


20  COST  OF  ENGLISH   COLONIZATION 

a  crop,   cost  as  much  more.     Thus  to  establish  a  family  in 
America  cost  some  thousands  of  dollars. 

Ordinary  laborers  who  wished  to  try  their  fortunes  beyond  seas  could 
not  pay  these  sums,  and  were  glad  to  become  "servants"  to  a  wealthy 
proprietor.  That  is,  they  mortgaged  their  labor  in  advance  for  a  few 
years  (from  four  to  seven)  in  return  for  transportation  and  subsistence, 
and  perhaps  for  a  tract  of  wild  land  at  the  end  of  their  term. 

Moreover,  there  were  no  ships  ready  for  the  business,  and  no 
supplies  in  stock  suitable  for  such  an  enterprise.  The  directors 
of  the  colonizing  movement  encountered  all  sorts  of  expensive 
delays  and  vexations.  They  had  to  buy  ships,  or  build  them : 
and,  in  Professor  Channing's  phrase,  they  had  to  buy  food  for 
the  voyages  "  on  the  hoof  or  in  the  shock,"  and  clothing,  not 
in  a  store,  but  on  the  sheep's  back.  Then  there  were  many 
expenses  of  a  general  nature.  The  colonizing  power  must  pro- 
vide government,  medicines,  fortifications,  military  supplies, 
and  food  to  meet  a  possible  crop  failure.  Much  money,  too,  was 
sure  to  be  lost  in  experimenting  with  unfit  industries  under 
untried  conditions, —  as  in  the  natural  but  futile  attempts  to 
introduce  silk  culture  and  glassmaking  in  Virginia  (§  31). 

20.  Policy  of  the  Crown.  —  The  English  crown  founded  no  colonies, 
nor  did  it  give  money  toward  founding  any.  It  did  give  charters  to  those 
men  who  were  willing  to  risk  their  fortunes  in  the  attempt.  These  char- 
ters were  grants  of  territory  and  of  authority  over  future  settlers.  Thus  the 
English  colonies  (with  a  few  accidental  exceptions,  which  will  be 
noticed)  were  at  first  proprietary.  The  proprietor  might  be  an  individual 
or  an  English  corporation.  In  either  case,  the  proprietor  owned  the  land 
and  ruled  the  settlers. 

21.  Preliminary  Attempts. — The  first  colonial  charter  was  granted 
by  Elizabeth,  in  1578,  to  Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert.1  Gilbert  made  two 
attempts  at  a  colony,  on  a  large  scale,  — starting  out  the  first  time  with 
eleven  ships  and  nearly  six  hundred  colonists,  and  the  second  time  with 
two  hundred  and  sixty  picked  settlers.     A  series  of  accidents,  together 

1  This  document  should  be  read  carefully  (Source  Book,  No.  15),  because  of 
its  bearing  upon  later  grants.  The  student  should  criticize,  in  the  light  of  the 
document  itself,  the  extravagant  misstatement  regarding  it  in  Fiske's  Old 
Virginia,  I,  30-31. 


GILBERT  AND   RALEIGH  21 

with  Spanish  hostility,  kept  the  first  expedition  from  reaching  America. 
The  second,  in  the  spring  of  1583,  entered  St.  John's  Harbor  on  the  New 
Foundland  coast.  Gilbert's  claims  were  recognized  readily  by  the  cap- 
tains of  the  "thirty-six  ships  of  all  nations"  present  there  for  the  fish- 
eries, and  he  took  formal  possession  of  the  country.  He  also  made  a  few 
grants  of  land  and  promulgated  some  laws.  But  desertion  and  disaster 
weakened  the  colonists,  and  in  August  the  survivors  sailed  for  England. 

Gilbert  had  sunk  his  fortune,  and  he  himself  perished  on  the  return. 
The  enterprise  was  taken  up  at  once  by  his  half  brother,  Sir  Walter 
Baleigh,  perhaps  the  most  romantic  and  gallant  figure  of  that  daring  age. 
In  1584,  Raleigh  received  a  charter  which  was  virtually  a  copy  of  Gilbert's. 
In  the  next  three  years  he  explored  the  coast  of  North  Carolina  and 
Virginia,1  and  sent  three  successive  expeditions  to  Roanoke  Island,  each 
time  in  considerable  fleets.  One  of  these  bands  of  settlers  was  found  in 
distress  by  Drake,  and  was  brought  back  to  England.  Supplies  and  re- 
inforcements for  the  other  colonies  were  delayed  by  the  struggle  with  the 
Spanish  Armada  ;  and  when  the  ships  did  arrive,  the  colonists  had  van- 
ished without  trace. 

Raleigh  had  spent  a  vast  fortune  (a  million  dollars  in  our  values) ; 
and,  though  he  sent  ships  from  time  to  time  to  search  for  the  lost  colonists, 
he  made  no  further  attempt  at  settlement.  Still,  despite  their  failures, 
Gilbert  and  Raleigh  are  the  fathers  of  American  colonization.  The 
tremendous  and  unforeseen  difficulties  of  the  enterprise  overmatched 
even  the  indomitable  will  of  these  Elizabethan  heroes;  but  their  efforts 
had  aroused  among  their  countrymen  an  interest  which  insured  success  in  the 
near  future.  / 

\J 

II.    VIRGINIA  UNDER   THE   LONDON   COMPANY,  1607-1624 

A.   Under  King  and  Company,  1607-1609 

{In  connection  with  §§  £f,  83,  the  student  should  study  the  charter  in 
the  Source  Book  {No.  16)  and  the  King's  Instructions  under  it  (ib.,  No. 
17)  and  verify  there  the  following  statements.) 

22.  The  Charter  of  1606.  —  The  failure  of  Gilbert  and  Kaleigh 
seemed  to  show  that  no  one  man  could  command  wealth  enough 
for  the  enterprise.     Indeed,  Kaleigh  had  secured  part  of  his 

1  Raleigh's  first  explorers  declared  the  new  land  "  the  most  plentiful,  sweet, 
fruitful,  and  wholesome  of  all  the  world,"  and  the  natives  were  affirmed  to 
be  "  such  as  live  after  the  manner  of  the  golden  age." 


22 


VIRGINIA  AND   THE  LONDON  COMPANY 


funds  by  forming  a  partnership  with  a  group  of  London  mer- 
chants. Twenty  years  later,  when  England  and  Spain  had 
made  peace,  some  of  these  merchants  organized  a  large  com- 
pany, in  two  divisions,  and  secured  from  King  James  a  patent 


VIRGINIA 

in  1606-1608 

Southern  Virginia  {London  Company) 
Northern  Virginia  {Plymouth  Company) 
Open  to  either  Company 


known  as  the  Charter  of  1606,  or  the  First  Virginia  Charter. 
Four  points  demand  particular  notice. 

a.  Grantees.  One  of  the  subcompanies  was  made  up  mainly 
of  Londoners,  and  is  known  as  the  London  Company.  The 
other  was  made  up  of  gentlemen  from  the  west  of  England, 
and  is  called  the  Plymouth  Company.  These  proprietary  com- 
panies were  to  remain  in  England. 

b.  Territory.  The  name  Virginia  then  applied  to  the  whole 
region  claimed  by  England  on  the  Atlantic  coast,  between  the 
Spaniards  on  the  south  and  the  French  on  the  north.  This 
made  a  tract  about  800  miles  long,  reaching  from  the  34th  to 


FROM   1606  TO   1609  23 

the  45th  parallel.  Within  this  territory,  each  company  was 
to  reoeive  a  district  100  miles  along  the  coast  and  100  miles 
inland,  —  the  London  Company's  tract  to  be  located  some- 
where in  southern  Virginia,  the  Plymouth  Company's  some- 
where in  the  north. 

The  exact  location  of  these  grants  was  to  be  determined  by  the  position 
of  the  first  settlements.  The  Londoners  were  to  choose  anywhere  between 
the  34th  and  the  41st  parallel  (or  between  Cape  Fear  and  the  Hudson). 
The  western  merchants  were  to  place  their  settlement  somewhere  between 
the  38th  and  the  45th  parallel  (between  the  Potomac  and  Maine) .  Neither 
Company  was  to  plant  a  colony  within  a  hundred  miles  of  one  established 
by  the  other.  This  complicated  arrangement  left  the  middle  district,  from 
the  Potomac  to  the  Hudson,  open  to  whichever  Company  should  first 
occupy  it.  Probably  the  King's  intention  was  to  encourage  rivalry  ;  but, 
in  fact,  the  dubious  overlapping  region  was  avoided  by  both  parties. 

c.  Settlers''  rights.  The  charter  gave  the  future  settlers  no 
share  in  governing  themselves  ;  but  it  did  promise  them  "  the 
liberties,  franchises,  and  immunities "  of  Englishmen.  This 
clause  {found  also  in  Gilbert's  and  in  nearly  all  later  charters) 
did  not  refer  to  "  the  right  to  vote  "  or  to  hold  office,  for  not 
all  Englishmen  had  such  privileges  at  home.  It  meant  such 
rights  as  jury  trial,  habeas-corpus  privileges,  and  free  speech, 
as  those  rights  were  then  understood  in  England. 

Channing  {United  States,  I,  162)  says  of  this  passage:  —  "English 
colonization  was  to  be  unlike  that  of  Spain,  France,  and  the  nations  of 
antiquity.  It  was  the  fate  ...  of  settlers  of  other  nations  to  be  looked 
upon  as  beings  outside  the  laws  and  privileges  of  the  dwellers  in  the  home 
land.  English  colonies,  on  the  other  hand,  were  to  enjoy  the  protection 
of  the  Common  Law  equally  with  the  inhabitants  of  England.  .  .  .  This 
enunciation  .  .  .  marked  an  epoch  in  colonization." 

d.  Government.  In  England  there  was  to  be  a  superior 
Council  for  the  double  company,  with  general  but  indefinite 
oversight.  In  each  colony  was  to  be  a  Council  appointed  by 
that  higher  Council  ;  and  these  local  Councils  were  to  govern 
the  settlers  according  to  laws  to  be  drawn  up  by  the  king} 

1  According  to  the  Instructions  drawn  up  by  James  before  the  first  expedi- 
tion sailed  (Source  Book,  No.  17),  death  or  mutilation  could  be  iurlicted  upon 


24  VIRGINIA  AND  THE   LONDON  COMPANY 

Thus  the  government  was  complicated  and  unsatisfactory,  both 
in  England  and  America.  In  England  it  was  partly  royal  and 
partly  proprietary,  without  a  clear  division  between  authorities. 
In  the  colonies  there  was  no  single  governor,  but  an  unwieldy- 
committee.  No  other  English  colonial  charter  was  so  im- 
perfect an  instrument  of  government;  but,  under  this  crude 
grant,  was  founded  the  first  permanent  English  colony. 

23.  Jamestown :  a  Plantation  Colony.  —  In  1607,  the  Plym- 
outh Company  made  a  fruitless  attempt  at  settlement  on  the 
coast  of-  Maine  (§45),  and  then  remained  inactive  for  twelve 
years.  But  in  December  of  1607  the  London  Company  sent 
out,  fti  three  small  vessels,  a  more  successful  expedition  to 
"  southern  Virginia." 

The  104  colonists  reached  the  Chesapeake  in  the  spring  of  1607, 
and  planted  their  town  of  Jamestown  on  the  banks  of  a  pleasant 
river  flowing  into  the  south  side  of  the  Bay.  To  avoid  sudden 
Spanish  attack  from  the  sea,  they  chose  a  site  some  thirty  miles 
up  the  stream.  For  some  years  this  was  the  only  regular  settle- 
ment. During  this  time,  and  for  a  while  even  after  other  settle- 
ments grew  up  about  the  first  one,  the  colony  was  really  a  great 
"plantation"  The  proprieters  were  the  company  of  stock- 
holders in  England.  They  directed  the  enterprise,  selected 
settlers,  appointed  officers,  furnished  transportation  and  sup- 
plies and  capital.  The  colonists  were  servants  and  employees. 
They  faced  shipwreck,  disease,  famine,  and  savage  warfare. 
They  performed  the  actual  work  of  settlement,  —  clearing 
forests,  building  rude  forts  and  towns,  and  raising  crops. 
The  managing  Council  at  Jamestown  was  not  primarily  a  politi- 
cal government,  but  rather  an  industrial  overseer.  Economic 
interests  were  supreme ;  and  the  work  of  the  officials  was  a  kind 
of  housekeeping  on  a  large  scale. 


no  offender  until  after  conviction  by  a  jury,  and  for  only  a  small  number  of 
crimes,  for  that  day ;  but  the  appointed  Council  were  to  punish  minor  offenses 
(such  as  idling  and  drunkenness)  at  their  discretion,  by  whipping  or  im- 
prisonment. This  authority  seems  extreme  to  us,  but  it  was  much  like  that 
possessed  then  by  the  justices  of  an  English  county. 


FROM   1606  TO   1609  25 

The  produce  of  the  settlers'  labor  went  into  a  common  stock.  Such 
products  as  promised  profitable  sale  in  Europe,  —  lumber,  sassafras, 
dyestuffs,  —  were  shipped  to  the  Company  to  help  meet  expenses.  Grain 
and  other  produce  fit  for  the  needs  of  the  settlers  were  kept  for  distribu- 
tion in  colonial  storehouses  under  the  charge  of  a  public  official.  Here, 
too,  were  kept  the  supplies  from  England,  —  medicines,  clothing,  furni- 
ture, tools,  arms  and  ammunition,  seeds,  stock  of  all  kinds  for  breeding, 
and  such  articles  of  food  as  meal,  bread,  butter,  cheese,  salt,  meat,  and 
preserved  fruits.  For  many  years  the  existence  of  the  colony  depended 
on  the  prompt  arrival,  every  few  months,  of  a  "supply";  and  the 
colonists  measured  time  by  dating  from  "the  First  Supply,"  or  "the 
Third  Supply."1 

The  system  of  "  industry  in  common  "  has  frequently  been  called  an  ex- 
periment in  communism.  In  reality  it  was  no  more  communism  than  was 
a  Virginia  slave  plantation  in  1850.  The  London  Company  would  have 
been  the  last  men  to  approve  any  theory  of  communism.  The  common  in- 
dustry and  undivided  profits  were  simply  clumsy  results  of  management  by 
a  distant  proprietary  company. 

24.  Suffering.  — The  location  of  Jamestown  was  low  and  un- 
healthy ;  the  government  was  not  suited  to  vigorous  action ; 
and,  at  the  best,  only  the  stern  school  of  experience  could  teach 
men  in  that  day  how  to  colonize  an  unknown  continent.  The 
first  years  were  a  time  of  cruel  suffering  and  often  of  sad  mis- 
management. The  first  summer  saw  two  thirds  of  the  settlers 
perish,  while  most  of  the  rest  were  helpless  with  fever  much 
of  the  time;  and,  for  twenty  years,  each  new  immigration  lost 
on  the  average  half  its  members  the  first  season.?  The  most 
attractive  figure  of  the  first  three  years  is  the  burly,  bustling 
John  Smith.  This  effective  leader,  becoming  President  of  the 
Council,  usurped  all  the  powers  of  government,  and,  by  benefi- 
cent tyranny,  saved  the  colony  from  extinction. 

1  This  description  of  the  plantation  features  of  the  colony  is  condensed  from 
Osgood,  English  Colonies,  I,  30  ff.  See  also  an  article  on  "  The  Plantation  Type 
of  Colony  "  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  VIII,  260  ff. 

2  The  First  Supply,  in  the  fall  of  1607,  found  only  38  survivors  at  Jamestown. 
Channing  ( I,  204)  gives  a  table  of  deaths  during  the  early  years.  See,  also, 
Percy's  "  Discourse  "  in  the  Source  Book.  No.  19  a. 


26  VIRGINIA   AND   THE   LONDON  COMPANY 

From  one  peril  the  colony  was  saved  by  its  very  misery..  Spain  watched 
jealously  this  intrusion  into  a  region  which  she  claimed  as  her  own,  and 
contemplated  an  attack  upon  Jamestown.  In  particular,  the  Spanish 
ambassador  at  London  urged  his  king  repeatedly  to  have  "  those  insolent 
people  in  Virginia  annihilated."  "  It  will  be  serving  God,"  he  wrote,  "to 
drive  these  villains  out  and  hang  them."  But  the  Spanish  spies  in  the 
colony  reported  that  it  must  fall  of  itself ;  and  the  dilatory  Spanish  govern- 
ment, already  slipping  into  decay  and  unwilling  to  make  King"  James  an 
enemy,  failed  to  act  (  Source  Book,  No.  22). 

In  1609,  Smith  returned  to  England.  The  next  winter  was 
"  the  Starving  Time."  A  special  effort  had  been  made,  the 
summer  before,  to  reinforce  the  colony ;  and  in  the  fall  the 
number  of  settlers  had  risen  to  more  than  three  hundred. 
Spring  found  only  sixty  gaunt  survivors.  These  had  embarked 
to  abandon  the  colony,  with  slight  chance  of  life  whether  they 
went  or  stayed,  when  they  met  Lord  Delaware,  the  new  gov- 
ernor, with  a  fleet  bearing  reinforcements  and  supplies.  Had 
Delaware  been  later  by  three  days,  Jamestown  would  have 
been  another  failure,  to  count  with  Ealeiglvs  at  Roanoke. 

B.    Under  the  Conservative  Company,   1609-1619 

(  With  §  25,  the  charters  of  1609  and  1612  should  be  studied  carefully 
(Source  Book),  and  each  statement  in  the  text  should  be  verified  from 
that  study.  Observe  that  these  charters  applied  to  only  the  London 
branch  of  the  original  Company.  The  Plymouth  branch  remained  with- 
out reorganization  till  1620.) 

25.  Reorganization:  Charters  of  1609  and  1612.  —  Meantime 
the  year  1609  saw  a  remarkable  outburst  of  enthusiasm  in 
England  in  behalf  of  the  sinking  colony.  Sermons  and  pam- 
phlets appealed  to  the  patriotism  of  the  nation  not  to  let  this 
new  England  perish.  The  list  of  stockholders  was  greatly 
multiplied,  and  came  to  include  the  most  famous  names  in 
England,  along   with  good  men  from  all  classes  of  society ; 1 

!See  note  in  Source  Book  to  No.  20.  Each  of  the  650  subscribers  bought 
from  one  to  ten  shares  of  stock,  at  £12  10 s.  a  share,  or  about  $400  a  share 
in  our  values.  (Cf .  §  19,  note,  on  the  value  of  money.)  The  stock  certificates 
were  negotiable,  with  the  approval  of  the  Company's  officers. 


f^A 


FROM   1609  TO   1616 


27 


t  Comfort 


and  the  enlarged  Company  received  enlarged  powers  through 
two  new  charters  in  1609  and  1612.  These  documents  are 
particularly  memorable  in  three  respects. 

a.  TJie  territory  of  the  Company  was  extended.  It  was  made 
to  reach  along  the  coast  each  way  200  miles  from  Point  Com- 
fort, and  "  up  into  the  land  throughout  from  sea  to  sea,  west 
and  northwest"  This  clumsy 
Northwest  clause  was  to  in- 


fluence our  later  history  in 
many  ways  (§  178  ff.).1 

b.  The  authority  retained 
by  the  king  in  the  charter  of 
1606  was  now  turned  over  to 
the  Company,  and  that  body 
received  a  democratic  organiza- 
tion.2 It  was  to  elect  its  own 
"  Treasurer "  and  Council 
(President  and  Directors,  in 
modern  phrase),  and  to  rule 
the  colony  in  all  respects. 
After  1612,  the  stockholders 
met  each  year  at  London  in 
four  "  Great  and  General 
Courts  "  for  important  busi- 

1  See  map  above  for  possible  interpretations.  Virginia  had  no  trouble  in 
deciding  which  to  insist  upon.  Probably  the  words  "  west  and  northwest  " 
were  used  vaguely,  with  the  meaning,  "  toward  the  western  ocean,"  which 
was  supposed  to  lie  rather  to  the  northwest.  Thus,  the  Company  had  in- 
structed the  first  Jamestown  expedition,  in  making  explorations,  especially 
to  investigate  those  rivers  that  came  from  the  Northwest.  The  myth  of  a 
"  Northwest  Passage  "  long  survived. 

5,2  More  accurately,  the  charter  of  1000  transferred  authority  from  the  king 
to  the  Company's  Council,  and  that  of  1612  handed  it  on  from  the  small 
Council  to  the  whole  body  of  stockholders.  If  Hannis  Taylor's  English  Con- 
stitution is  accessible,  his  amazing  passage  (I,  23)  regarding  these  charters 
should  be  criticized  by  the  class.  The  charter  of  1600  refers  to  the  "  Council 
resident  here."  "  Here,"  of  course,  means  in  England;  but  Mr.  Taylor  seems 
to  take  it  to  mean  in  America.  Hence  he  finds  in  this  charter  the  beginning 
of  "local  self-government." 


L.L.  P0*TES  ENQ.  C0..N.Y. 


28  VIRGINIA  AND   THE   LONDON  COMPANY 

ness,  while  smaller  meetings  were  held  from  week  to  week  to 
dispatch  "  casual  and  particular  occurrences." 

c.  A  more  efficient  government  was  provided  in  the  colony. 
True,  there  was  no  hint  yet  of  self-government.  The  Com- 
pany in  England  made  all  laws  and  appointed  all  officers  for 
the  colony,  and  it  could  give  its  appointees  arbitrary  power  of 
life  and  death  over  the  settlers.  But  the  inefficient  plural 
head  in  the  colony,  with  its  divisions  and  jealousies,  gave  way 
to  one  "  principal  governor."  1 

Virginia  was  now  wholly  a  proprietary  colony.  The  reorganized 
Company  owned  and  ruled  it  for  fifteen  years  (1609-1624).  This  period 
falls  into  two  sharply  contrasted  parts.  For  the  first  ten  years  the  Com- 
pany was  despotic  and  absolute  (§  26).  During  the  last  five  years  it 
gave  a  large  measure  of  self-government  to  the  settlers  (§27  ff.). 

26.  The  "  Time  of  Slavery."  —  Virginia  had  left  anarchy 
behind,  but  she  had  not  reached  liberty,  either  in  politics  or 
industry.  The  Company  decided  to  continue  the  "  plantation  " 
plan  (Source  Book,  No.  20,  closing  note),  and  it  put  in  force  a 
military  government  with  a  savage  code  of  laws.  From  1611 
to  1616,  the  chief  officer  in  Virginia  was  Sir  Thomas  Dale,  —  a 
stern  soldier,  energetic  but  merciless,  and  not  well  fitted  for 
civil  administration. 

The  charter  of  1609  authorized  martial  law  (that  is,  trial  by  military 
courts,  without  juries  and  without  the  other  usual  privileges  of  accused 
persons).  It  was  intended,  probably,  that  this  extreme  power  should  be 
used  only  "in  cases  of  rebellion  or  mutiny,"  under  the  same  conditions 
as  in  England.  But,  by  an  unwarranted  stretch  of  authority,  martial  law 
was  established  for  several  years  as  the  regular  method  of  administering 
justice.  At  the  same  time  there  was  put  in  force  a  particularly  offensive 
set  of  laws,  known  as  Dale's  Code.  Among  other  provisions,  the  code 
enforced  attendance  at  divine  worship  daily,  under  penalty  of  six  months 
in  the  galleys,  and  on  Sundays  on  pain  of  death  for  repeated  absence. 
Death  was  the  penalty  also  for  repeated  blasphemy,  for  "speaking  evil  of 
any  known  article  of  the  Christian  faith,"  for  refusing  to  answer  the  cate- 
chism of  a  clergyman,  and  for  neglecting  work. 

1  The  Company  gave  each  governor  a  Council  to  assist  him ;  but,  until 
1619,  its  power  was  merely  to  advise. 


A  LIBERAL  COMPANY,   1619  TO   1624  29 

Moreover,  the  military  courts  imposed  ingeniously  atrocious  punish- 
ments, such  as  burning  at  the  stake,  breaking  on  the  wheel,  or  leaving 
bound  to  a  tree  to  starve,  with  a  bodkin  thrust  through  the  tongue. 
Dale's  rule  was  long  known  as  "the  time  of  slavery"  ;  and  an  old  his- 
torian of  Virginia  fitly  calls  the  system  "very  bloody  and  severe,  ...  in 
no  wise  agreeable  to  a  free  people  or  to  the  British  constitution.  "  x 

But  though  Dale's  harsh  tyranny  was  little  better  than 
slave-gang  rule,  yet  he  did  keep  order  and  protect  the  colony 
efficiently  from  the  Indians.  In  1614,  he  even  made  a  few 
three-acre  allotments  of  land  to  private  holders,  with  excellent 
results.  Still,  at  his  departure,  in  1616,  the  population,  scat- 
tered in  eight  little  settlements,  numbered  only  351.2  During 
the  next  two  years,  the  tyranny  which  Dale  had  practiced  for 
the  public  good  was  used  by  a  new  governor  (Argall)  for  selfish 
ends.  This  hastened  a  crisis.  Argall  was  recalled,  to  stand 
trial ;  and  a  revolution  took  place  in  the  government  of  both 
Company  and  colony. 

• 

C.     Under  the  Liberal  Company,  1619-1624 


~V 


27.  The  Company  becomes  Liberal.  —  The  London  Company 
had  split  into  factions.  The  element  so  far  in  power  was  con- 
servative, and  belonged  to  the  "  court  party  "  in  politics  ; 3  but, 
toward  the  end  of  1618,  control  of  the  Company  passed  to  a 

1 A  few  years  later,  the  Company  solemnly  declared  that  the  code  was  put 
in  force  by  Dale  with  the  approval  only  of  the  "Treasurer"  (Sir  Thomas 
Smith),  without  ever  having  been  sanctioned  by  a  "General  Court."  Some 
writers  try  to  excuse  Dale  on  the  plea  that  the  settlers  needed  "  a  firm  hand  "  ; 
but  the  absence  of  any  disorder  when  this  severity  was  suddenly  given  up 
(§  28,  b)  raises  a  doubt  whether  it  had  been  needed.  Dale  was  conscientious 
and  full  of  enthusiasm  for  Virginia.  "Take  the  best  four  kingdoms  of 
Europe,"  he  wrote,  "  and  put  them  all  together,  and  they  may  no  way  com- 
pare with  this  country  for  commodity  and  goodness  of  soil."  See  also  §  17  a, 
note,  and  Source  Book,  No.  12. 

2  Of  these,  65  were  women  and  children.  The  351  were  the  survivors  of 
2000  settlers  who  up  to  that  time  had  landed  in  Virginia.  Only  81  land  allot- 
ments had  been  made,  —  or  a  small  garden  to  one  man  out  of  four.  Probably 
the  other  three  men  of  every  four  were  still  "  servants." 

3  Modern  History,  §  238,  close. 


30  VIRGINIA  AND   THE   LONDON   COMPANY 

liberal  and  Puritan  faction,  led  by  the  Earl  of  Southampton  and 
Sir  Edwin  Sandys.  These  patriots  were  struggling  gallantly 
in  Parliament  against  King  James'  arbitrary  rule ;  and  they  at 
once  granted  a  large  measure  of  self-government  to  the  Eng- 
lishmen across  the  Atlantic,  over  whom  they  themselves  ruled.1 
Sir  George  Yeardley  was  sent  out  as  governor,  with  instruc- 
tions which  began  a  new  era  in  Virginia. 

28.  Yeardley  in  Virginia.  —  With  Yeardley's  arrival,  in 
April,  1619,  the  number  of  colonists  was  raised  to  about  a 
thousand.     They  were  still,  mainly,  indentured  servants,  and 

were  distributed  among  eleven 
petty  "plantations,"2  —  mere 
patches  on  the  wilderness,  — ■ 
scattered  along  a  narrow  ribbon 
of  territory,  nowhere  more  than 

n  six   miles  wide,  curving   up  the 

Ihe  Dots  mark  the  Ribbon  '  °       r 

of  Settlement  in  1624.  James  to  a  hundred  miles  from 

the  sea.  Industry  was  still  in 
common  (except  for  the  slight  beginning  of  private  tillage 
under  Dale)  ;  and  martial  law  was  still  the  prevailing  govern- 
ment. According  to  his  instructions  from  the  Company, 
Yeardley  at  once  introduced  three  great  reforms. 

a.  The  system  of  common  industry  was  abolished,  and  private 
ownership  was  established.  All  free  immigrants  received  lib- 
eral grants  of  land  for  private  possession. 

A  large  part  of  the  settlers  continued  for  some  time  to  be  "servants  " 
of  the  Company,  and  these  were  employed  as  before  on  the  Company's 
land.  But  each  of  the  old  free  planters  now  received  100  acres ;  each 
servant  was  given  the  same  amount  when  his  term  of  service  expired  ;  and 
each  new  planter  thereafter  was  to  receive  50  acres  for  himself  and  as 
much  more  for  each  servant  he  brought   with   him.     Grants  of  many 

1  The  quarrel  within  the  Company  grew  out  of  business  and  personal  dif- 
ferences, not  out  of  political  principles.  But  when  the  Sandys  party  found 
itself  in  control,  it  seized  the  chance  to  embody  its  principles  of  government 
in  a  free  colony. 

2  The  word  "plantation,"  as  used  here  to  indicate  a  distinct  settlement,  must 
not  be  confused  with  the  word  as  used  in  §  22. 


FIRST   REPRESENTATIVE   ASSEMBLY  31 

hundred  acres  were  made,  too,  to  men  who  rendered  valuable  service  to 
the  colony.  For  many  years,  all  grants  were  in  strips  fronting  on  rivers 
up  which  ships  could  ascend. 

b.  Martial  law  and  Bale's  Code  ivere  set  aside.  As  a  later 
"Declaration"  by  the  Old  Planters  puts  it,  Yeardley  pro- 
claimed "  that  these  crnell  lawes  by  which  we  had  soe  longe 
been  governed  were  abrogated,  and  that  we  -were  now  to  be 
governed  by  those  free  lawes  which  his  Majesties  subjects  live 
under  in  Englande."  That  is,  Yeardley  restored  the  private 
rights  of  Englishmen,  to  which  the  settlers  were  entitled  both 
by  the  Common  Law  and  by  the  Company's  charter  (§  22). 

c.  The  settlers  received  a  share  in  the  government.  A  Repre- 
sentative Assembly  was  summoned,  "  freely  to  be  elected  by 
the  inhabitants,  ...  to  make  and  ordaine  whatsoever  lawes 
and  orders  should  by  them  be  thought  good  and  profitable." 
This  political  privilege  was  a  new  thing,  to  which  the  colonists 
had  no  express  claim,  and  for  which,  indeed,  they  had  not  / 
asked.  ^jpf^ 

29.  The  First  Representative  Assembly1  in  America  met  at  JLr\j. 
Jamestown,  August  9,2 1619.  It  was  not  purely  representative. 
Each  of  the  eleven  plantations  sent  two  delegates ;  but  in  the 
same  "  House  "3  with  these  elected  "burgesses"  sat  the  gov- 
ernor and  his  council  (seven  or  eight  in  number),  appointed 
from  England. 

We  have  no  account  of  the  elections.4  No  doubt  they  were  extremely 
informal.     Of  the  thousand  people  in  the  colony,  seven   hundred  must 

1  The  Records  are  given  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  25.  An  exercise  might 
well  be  spent  upon  them,  along  with  §  §  29-30 ;  and  cf.  also  Source  Book, 
Nos.  23,  24. 

2  The  Old  Style  date,  July  30,  is  often  given.  A  discussion  of  Old  and 
New  Style  is  given  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  20,  note. 

3  Eggleston  {Beginners  of  a  Nation,  55)  says  that  the  Assembly  "  con- 
tained in  embryo  the  American  system  of  ...  a  legislature  of  two  houses  "  ; 
but  certainly  he  does  not  mean  that  burgesses  and  council  had  as  yet  separated 
into  two  Houses,  as  the  student  sometimes  understands  him. 

4  The  student  will  find  it  instructive,  in  the  light  of  this  fact,  to  compare 
the  circumstantial  but  highly  imaginative  picture  in  Brown's  First  Republic, 
315.  with  a  cautious  statement  like  that  in  Doyle's  English  Colonies,  I,  159. 


32  VIRGINIA  AND   THE   LONDON  COMPANY 

have  been  "servants"  without  a  vote  ;  and,  of  the  three  hundred  or  so 
free  persons,  a  fraction  were  women  and  children.  Probably  there  were 
not  more  than  two  hundred  voters.  They  were  distributed  among  eleven 
plantations  ;  and,  at  least  in  some  of  these,  the  only  voters  must  have 
been  the  foreman  and  employees  of  a  rich  proprietor.  It  is  not  likely  that 
polls  were  opened  in  more  than  two  or  three  of  the  plantations.  In 
many  cases,  the  "  election,"  no  doubt,  was  really  an  appointment. 

The  Assembly  opened  with  prayer,  and  slipped  with  amaz- 
ing ease  into  the  forms  of  an  English  parliament.  It  verified 
credentials  of  the  delegates  ;  it  gave  all  bills  three  "readings"; 
and,  in  two  cases,  it  acted  as  a  court  of  justice,  trying  ordinary 
criminals  and  imposing  judgment.1  Laws  (which  to-day  would 
be  stigmatized  as  "  Blue  Laws  ")  were  passed  against  drunken- 
ness, gambling,  idleness,  absence  from  church,  excess  in 
apparel,  and  other  misdemeanors.  For  that  age,  the  penalties 
were  light ;  but  death  was  prescribed  for  those  offenders  who 
endangered  the  colony  by  selling  firearms  to  the  Indians.  The 
Church  of  England  was  made  the  established  church,  and  aid 
was  asked  from  the  Company  toward  setting  up  a  college. 
With  all  this  business,  the  Assembly  sat  only  six  days.  The 
work  was  done  mostly  in  committees,  and  there  was  little 
debate.  The  governor  possessed  an  absolute  veto,  but  had  no 
occasion  to  use  it. 

Virginia  had  been  transformed  from  a  "  plantation  colony,"  ruled  by  a 
despotic  overseer,  into  a  self-governing  political  community.  Rude  as  the 
organization  was,  this  beginning  of  representative  government  in  the 
wilderness  has  a  simple  grandeur  and  a  striking  significance.  The 
pioneers  manifested  an  instinct  and  fitness  for  representative  govern- 
ment, a  zest  in  it,  and  a  deep  sense  of  its  value.  It  came  as  a  gift;  but, 
once  given,  it  could  not  be  withdrawn.2 

1  This  mixture  of  legislative  and  judicial  functions  was  found  in  the 
"  Courts  "  of  the  Company  in  England  and  in  all  early  colonial  Assemblies. 
The  clear  separation  into  legislatures,  on  the  one  hand,  and  judicial  courts,  on 
the  other,  came  later.  We  still  have  some  survival  of  judical  power  in  our 
senates  in  impeachment  trials ;  and,  until  a  recent  date,  there  was  much  more 
of  that  power  in  the  English  House  of  Lords. 

2  Many  American  writers  speak  as  though  the  colonists  had  created  the 
Assembly.    Thomas  Hutchinson   {History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  94,   note) 


FIRST   REPRESENTATIVE   ASSEMBLY  33 

Jury  trial  and  representative  government  were  both  established  upon 
a  lasting  foundation  in  America  in  1619,  while  Virginia  was  the  only  Eng- 
lish colony.  These  two  bulwarks  of  freedom  were  not  then  known  in  any 
large  country  except  in  England  ;  and  they  were  not  to  take  root  in  the 
colonies  of  any  other  country  for  more  than  two  hundred  years.  Their 
establishment  in  Virginia  made  them  inevitable  in  all  other  English  colonies. 

30.  Charters  to  the  Settlers.  —  Yeardley  presented  to  the 
Assembly  a  long  document  from  the  Company.  The  Assembly 
called  it  a  "  Great  Charter,"  and  appointed  two  committees  to 
examine  it  carefully,  "  because  [it]  is  to  binde  us  and  our 
heyers  forever."  This  "  charter  of  1618  "  has  been  lost ;  but  it 
seems  to  have  arranged  for  land  grants,  and  certainly  it  guar- 
anteed a  representative  Assembly.  Two  years  later,  Francis 
Wyatt  became  governor,  and  the  Company  sent  over  by  him 
a  brief  confirmation  of  the  political  rights  of  the  colonists  in  a 
second  "  charter,"  known  as  the  Ordinance  of  1621. x 

Some  historians,  including  even  Channing  {United  States,  I,  203),  hold 
that  the  document  presented  by  Yeardley  was  not  a  charter  to  the  colony 
but  only  "instructions "  from  the  Company  to  himself  as  governor.  But 
a  governor's  instructions  might  be  changed  any  time  at  the  Company's 
will.  The  Assembly's  language- does  not  fit  mere  "instructions."  In- 
deed, they  would  have  had  no  business  with  such  a  document,  — unless 
it  pledged  the  Company  for  the  future  to  a  specified  policy  ;  and,  if  it  did 
this,  then,  no  matter  what  its  form,  it  was  really  a  "  charter,"  as  the 
Assembly  called  it.  It  became  at  once  an  inducement  to  emigrants  ;  and 
the  English  law  regarded  such  a  grant  as  a  bargain,  or  contract.  The 
grantor  could  not  revoke  it.     Only  the  highest  English  courts  or  parlia- 

said  that  in  1619  representative  government  "broke  out"  in  Virginia;  and 
Story  in  his  great  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution  (I,  §  166)  said  that 
the  Assembly  was  "  forced  upon  the  proprietors  "  by  the  colonists.  Influenced 
by  such  earlier  authorities,  John  Fiske  (Old  Virginia,  I,  186)  explains  the 
Assembly  on  the  ground  that  "  the  people  called  for  self-government."  But 
this  view  is  contrary  to  all  evidence.  For  a  good  statement,  see  Channing, 
United  States,  I,  204.  For  the  ardor,  however,  with  which  the  settlers  main- 
tained the  privilege,  in  contrast  to  French  indifference  (§  15),  see  §§  33-36. 

1  The  class  should  discuss  fully  the  scheme  of  government  there  provided 
(Source  Book,  No.  27).  Note  the  remarkable  promise  at  the  close,  and  com- 
pare with  one  of  the  Assembly's  petitions.  For  the  methods  of  the  Company, 
and  its  spirit,  see  extracts  from  its  rules  in  Source  Book,  Nos.  23,  24,  26. 


34  VIRGINIA  AND   THE   LONDON   COMPANY 

ment  could  set  it  aside.  This  contract  character  certainly  belongs  to  the 
Ordinance  of  1021,  — though  that  document  lacks  somewhat  the  form  of  a 
charter. 

These  "charters"  of  1618  and  1621  were  wholly  different  from  royal 
grants  to  proprietors  in  England,  like  the  charter  of  1609.  They  were 
the  first  of  many  charters  and  "  concessions  "  issued  by  the  proprietors 
of  various  colonies  to  settlers  in  America,  in  order  to  set  up  ideals  of 
government  or  to  attract  settlers. 

31.  Material  Growth.  —  The  new  management  of  the  Com- 
pany bestirred  itself  to  build  up  the  colony  on  the  material  side 
also.  To  supply  the  labor  so  much  needed,  Sandys  (the 
"  Treasurer  "  for  1619)  sought  throughout  England  for  skilled 
artisans  and  husbandmen,  and  shipped  to  Virginia  many  hun- 
dred "  servants  "  of  less  desirable  character.  Several  cargoes 
of  young  women  were  induced  to  go  out  for  wives  to  the 
settlers ;  and  supplies  of  all  kinds  were  poured  into  the  colony 
with  a  lavish  hand. 

This  generous  paternalism  was  often  unwise.  Effort  and 
money  were  wasted  in  trying  to  establish  unsuitable  industries, 
like  the  production  of  iron,  glass,  silk,  and  wine  ;  and  the  main 
industry  that  was  to  prove  successful,  tobacco  raising,  had  to 
win  its  way  against  the  Company's  frowns.  Moreover,  pesti- 
lence and  hardship  continued  to  kill  off  a  terrible  proportion 
of  the  people.  In  the  first  three  years  after  Yeardley's  arrival, 
more  than  three  thousand  new  settlers  landed ;  but  in  March, 
1622,  of  the  population  old  and  new,  only  some  twelve  hundred 
survived,  and  that  spring  an  Indian  massacre  swept  away  a 
third  of  that  little  band. 

In  spite  of  all  this,  Virginia  became  prosperous  under  the 
Company's  rule.  Two  years  after  the  massacre,  when  the 
Company  fell  (§  32),  the  population  had  risen  again  to  twelve 
hundred,  and  the  number  of  settlements  had  become  nineteen. 
The  Indians  had  been  crushed.  Fortunes  were  made  in  tobacco, 
and  the  homes  of  the  colonists  were  taking  on  an  air  of  com- 
fort. The  period  of  experiment  was  past,  and  the  era  of  rapid 
growth  had  just  been  reached.     During  the  following  ten  years 


KING  HOSTILE   TO   COMPANY  35 

(1624-1634),  the  population  grew  fourfold,  —  to  more  than  five 
thousand  people,  organized  in  eight  counties.  Thereafter, 
material  development  was  uninterrupted. 

The  first  tobacco  was  grown  for  export  in  1612  ;  but  both  the  Conserv- 
ative and  Liberal  management  of  the  Company  discouraged  its  cultiva- 
tion (in  part,  from  moral  reasons)  ;  and,  even  later,  King  Charles  warned 
the  Virginians  not  to  "  build  solely  on  smoke."  The  product,  however, 
brought  high  prices  in  Europe  ;  and,  before  1624,  it  was  apparent  that  a 
profitable  industry  had  been  found.  Thereafter,  Virginia  needed  no 
coddling.  In  Eggleston's  words,  the  colony  "was  no  longer  a  hothouse 
plant ;  it  had  struck  root  in  the  outdoor  soil  of  human  interest." 

32.  The  King  overthrows  the  Company. — Meanwhile  James 
became  bitterly  hostile  to  the  Company.  Sandys,  the  first  Lib- 
eral "  Treasurer,"  was  particularly  obnoxious.1  When  Sandys' 
term  expired  (in  1620),  the  King  sent  to  the  "  General 
Court"  the  names  of  four  men  from  whom  he  advised  them  to 
elect  a  new  Treasurer.  The  Company  (some  hundreds  of  the 
best  gentlemen  of  England  present)  remonstrated  earnestly 
against  this  interference  with  the  freedom  of  election  guaran- 
teed by  their  charter;  and  James  yielded,  exclaiming  petu- 
lantly, "  Choose  the  Devil,  an  ye  will ;  only  not  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys  !  "  Sandys  then  withdrew  his  name ;  and  the  Company 
chose  his  friend  Southampton,  who  was  little  more  to  the 
royal  taste.2     By  general  agreement,  Sandys  remained  the  real 


1  Cf.  §§  27  and  31.  Sandys  replaced  Sir  Thomas  Smith  as  the  executive 
officer  of  the  Company  in  England  in  1619.  He  was  prominent  in  parliament 
in  opposing  the  king's  arbitrary  policy,  and  was  reported  to  be  "  the  king's 
greatest  enemye."  More  than  once  he  was  committed  to  custody  by  royal 
order.  One  of  his  business  associates  testified  that  "there  was  not  any 
man  in  the  world  that  carried  a  more  malitious  hearte  to  the  government  of 
a  Monarchic  than  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  did,"- and  that  Sandys  had  said  re- 
peatedly that  he  "  aymed  ...  to  make  a  free  popular  state  there  [in  Virginia] 
in  which  the  people  should  have  noe  government  putt  upon  them  but  by  their 
owne  consents." 

2  Southampton  had  been  a  friend  of  Shakespeare,  and  he  was  a  Liberal  leader 
in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Company  inquired  whether  Southampton  would 
serve  as  Treasurer.  "  I  know  the  King  will  be  angry,"  replied  the  Earl,  "  but 
so  this  pious  and  glorious  work  ...  be  encouraged,  let  the  Company  do  with 
me  as  they  think  good."    Then  "surceasing  the  ballot,". the  meeting  elected 


36  VIRGINIA  AND  THE  LONDON  COMPANY 

manager.  Again,  when  Southampton's  second  term  expired 
(1622),  James  sent  to  the  Court  of  Election  five  names.  It 
would  be  pleasing  to  him,  he  said,  if  the  Company  chose  a  new 
Treasurer  from  the  list ;  but  this  time  he  carefully  disclaimed 
any  wish  to  infringe  their  "liberty  of  free  election."  The 
Company  proceded  to  reelect  Southampton  by  117  ballots,  to  a 
total  of  20  for  the  King's  nominees.  Then  they  sent  a  com- 
mittee to  thank  James  "  with  great  reverence "  for  his  "  gra- 
cious remembrance "  and  for  his  "  regard  for  their  liberty  of 
election."  It  is  reported  that  the  King  "  flung  away  in  a  furi- 
ous passion."  Small  wonder,  at  all  events,  that  he  listened  to 
the  sly  slur  of  the  Spanish  ambassador  who  called  the  Lon- 
don Company's  General  Court  "the  seminary  for  a  seditious 
parliament." 

Since  James  could  not  secure  control  of  the  Company,  he 
now  decided  to  overthrow  it.  A  revival  of  the  old  factions 
within  it,  and  the  massacre  of  1622  in  Virginia,  furnished  a 
pretext.  Commissioners  were  sent  to  the  colony,  to  gather 
further  imformation  unfavorable  to  the  Company's  rule ;  but 
the  Virginians  supported  the  Company  ardently,  and  made 
petition  after  petition  to  the  King  in  its  favor.  The  charter 
could  be  revoked  only  by  a  legal  judgment ;  but  just  at  this 
time  the  English  courts  were  basely  subservient  to  the  mon- 
arch,1 and,  spite  of  the  Company's  valiant  defense,  the  King's 
lawyers,  in  1624,  secured  judgment  that  its  charter  was  void.2 

Thus  ended  the  London  Company,  —  "  the  greatest  and  noblest  associ- 
ation ever  organized  by  the  English  people."  It  had  expended  five 
million  dollars,  and  had  made  no  profits;  but  it  had  "  added  a  fifth  king- 

him  "  with  much  joy  and  applause,  by  erection  of  hands."  These  spicy  an- 
ecdotes come  mainly  from  the  papers  of  the  Ferrars,  high  officials  of  the 
Company.  The  most  important  official  records  are  given  in  Source  Book,  No. 
28.    There  the  language  is  more  courtly,  but  the  spirit  is  equally  definite. 

1  Modern  History,  §241.  Sir  Edward  Coke,  the  great  Chief  Justice,  had 
been  dismissed  from  office  by  James  for  refusing  to  degrade  his  position  by 
consulting  the  King's  will  in  his  decisions.  Such  interference  with  the  courts 
was  a  new  thing  in  England,  and  was  never  to  recur  after  the  Stuart  reigns. 

2  The  King's  advocate  pleaded  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  public  weal  for  a 
merchant  company  to  exercise  such  vast  powers  over  Englishmen. 


STRUGGLE   TO  PRESERVE   SELF-GOVERNMENT      37 

dom  "  to  England,1  and  had  established  civil  liberty  therein.  Its  work 
was  done.  Its  overthrow  was  not  to  hinder  the  future  progress  of 
Virginia^ 

IRGINIA  A  ROYAL  PROVINCE  (NEGLECTED)  TO  1660 


M.^y 


33.  Results  of  the  Change.  —  Virginia  had  become  a  royal  province. 
Four  results  call  for  attention. 

a.  Land  grants  from  the  Company  to  individuals  held  good,  —  though 
for  a  time  the  colonists  felt  some  uneasiness  in  the  matter. 

b.  All  the  land  which  had  been  granted  to  the  Company  by  the  charter, 
and  which  had  not  been  transferred  to  individuals,  became  crown  property  2 
again.  Thereafter  the  crown,  through  the  royal  governors,  made  grants 
to  individuals  upon  much  the  same  terms  that  the  Company  had  used. 

c.  The  colony  was  now  compelled  to  support  itself.  There  were  no 
more  supplies  from  England.  At  first  the  settlers  dreaded  this  result. 
They  believed  the  colony  could  not  survive  without  the  fostering  which 
it  had  enjoyed.  In  the  next  three  years,  they  sent  four  petitions3  to  the 
crown  for  aid ;  but  the  royal  proprietor,  quarreling  with  parliament  and 
struggling  for  money  enough  to  run  the  government  at  home,  paid  no 
attention  to  such  prayers.  This  was  fortunate.  The  colony  found  that  it 
could  walk  alone. 

d.  Political  control  over  the  colonists  reverted  wholly  to  the  king.  He 
was  not  bound  by  the  charters  of  1618  and  1621,  as  the  Company  would 
have  been.  When  the  Company  fell,  grants  of  jurisdiction  from  it  be- 
came worthless.  And  as  the  colonists  feared  the  king  would  help  too  little, 
so,  with  more  reason,  they  feared  that  he  would  govern  too  much  (§  34) . 

1  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  France  were  claimed  in  the  title  of  the 
English  crown. 

2  Virginia  afterward  claimed  its  "ancient  bounds,"  as  they  had  been  de- 
fined in  the  charter  of  1609.  But  that  grant  was  not  made  to  the  colony ;  and 
the  king  was  strictly  within  his  rights  when  he  afterward  granted  Maryland, 
and  other  parts  of  the  territory,  to  new  proprietors.  Still,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
Virginia  claim  remained  an  important  factor  in  our  history.  Cf.,  also, 
Safcrce  Book,  No.  34,  and  note. 

*^jie  of  these,  carried  to  England  by  Yeardley,  reads,  in  part :  "  The  ground 
^Jfor^Bf  all  is  that  there  must  bee  a  sufficient  publique  stock  to  goe  through 
withffoe  greate  a  worke ;  which  we  can  not  compute  to  bee  lesse  than  £20,000 
a  yeare.  .  .  .  For  by  it  must  be  mainetayned  the  Governor  and  his  Counsell 
and  other  officers  here,  the  forest  wonne  and  stocked  with  cattle,  fortifications 
raysed,  an  army  mainetayned,  discoveries  mayde  by  Sea  and  land,  and  all  other 
things  requisite  in  soe  mainefold  a  business."     Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  31,  b. 


38  VIRGINIA  A   ROYAL  PROVINCE,    1624-1660 

34.  Preservation  of  the  Assembly.  —  There  was  real  danger 
that  King  James  would  establish  an  arbitrary  government  in 
Virginia.  In  the  spring  of  1624,  when  the  overthrow  of  the 
Company  was  imminent,  a  body  of  leading  settlers,  with  the 
Assembly's  approval,  "  humbly  entreat  .  .  .  that  the  Gov- 
ernors [to  be  appointed  by  the  king]  may  not  have  absolute 
authority,  but  be  restrayned,  as  formerlie,  by  the  consent  of  a 
Counsell  .  .  .  [and]  above  all  .  .  .  that  we  may  retayne  the 
Libertie  of  our  General  Assemblie,  than  which  nothing  can 
more  conduce  to  our  satisfaction  or  the  public  utilitie."  At 
the  same  time  the  Assembly  itself  solemnly  put  on  record  its 
claim  to  control  taxation,  in  a  memorable  enactment  :  — 

"That  the  Governor  shall  lay  no  taxes  or  ympositions  upon  the  colony, 
its  lands  or  goods,  other  way  than  by  the  authority  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, to  be  levied  and  ymployed  as  the  said  Assembly  shall  appoynW'' l 

This  was  the  first  assertion  on  this  continent  of  the  English  prin- 
ciple, "No  taxation  without  representation."  James  was  planning  a 
despotic  government  for  the  colony;  but  he  died  (1624)  before  he  had 
put  his  new  "constitution  "  in  form,  and  Charles  I  at  once  found  himself 
so  involved  in  quarrels  at  home  and  abroad  that  he  could  give  little 
attention  to  a  distant  colony.  Thus  Virginia  was  left  to  develop  with 
less  interference  than  it  would  have  encountered  from  the  most  liberal 
proprietary  Company.  The  London  Company  had  planted  constitutional 
liberty  in  America;  the  settlers  clung  to  it  devotedly;  and  the  careless  royal 
government  found  it  easier  to  use  the  institution  than  to  uproot  it. 

King  James  began  his  control  by  confirming  Governor  Wyatt 
and  the  former  Council  in  their  places  in  Virginia,  — 

"to  direct  and  governe  [the  Virginians],  and  execute  ...  all  other 
matters  concerning  that  Plantation  as  fullye  and  amplye  as  any  Governor 
and  Council  resident  there  at  any  time  within  the  Jive  years  now  last  past.'''1  * 

A  year  later,  Charles  I  copied  this  phrase,  in  appointing  Yeard- 
ley  governor  again,  and  it  became  a  regular  form  in  subsequent 

1  The  law  asserts  the  Assembly's  control  over  the  method  of  collecting 
and  expending  taxes,  be  it  observed,  as  well  as  over  merely  granting  them. 
The  same  Assembly  passed  two  other  acts  (Source  Book,  No.  31,  a)  in  the 
nature  of  a  bill  of  rights,  to  guard  personal  and  public  liberty  against  the 
expected  royal  governor. 

2  See  extracts  from  the  royal  commission  in  Source  Book,  No.  29. 


STRUGGLE   TO   PRESERVE   SELF-GOVERNMENT      39 

commissions.  The  royal  governors  never  received  absolute 
authority,  such  as  Dale  held.  They  could  do  no  important  act 
without  the  Council,  as  the  colony  had  petitioned.  But  nothing 
was  said  in  the  first  commissions  about  a  representative  Assembly, 
and  doubtless  the  royal  intention  was  quietly  to  do  away  with 
it.  At  all  events  none  was  permitted  for  five  years  (1624- 
1628).  During  just  this  time,  however,  the  royal  governors 
(Wyatt,  Yeardley,  and  Francis  West)  were  appointed  from  old 
officials  of  the  Liberal  Company.  In  various  ways  these  men 
maintained  liberal  traditions ;  1  and  each  of  them  joined  in  a 
petition  for  the  restoration  of  the  Assembly. 

Yeardley  was  sent  to  England  in  1625  to  represent  the  desires  of 
the  colonists.  He  presented  to  the  King's  Council  a  long  petition  that 
the  "Libertie  of  Generall  Assemblies  be  confirmed,"  and  urged  strenu- 
ously that  such  assurance  was  needed  to  allay  the  universal  distrust  felt  in 
Virginia,  where  "  the  people  .  .  .  justly  fearing  to  fall  into  former 
miseries,  resolve  rather  to  seek  the  farthest  part  of  the  World" 

These  petitions  met  with  no  direct  response.  But,  in  1628, 
Charles  wished  a  monopoly  of  the  Virginia  tobacco  trade,  and, 
hoping  vainly  that  an  Assembly  would  vote  it  to  him,  he 
ordered  the  governor  to  summon  one.  Soon  after,  Charles 
appointed  Sir  John  Harvey  governor.  Harvey  belonged  to 
the  court  faction  in  England,  and  had  been  one  of  the  royal 
commissioners  sent  to  Virginia  in  1623.  Apparently  he  had 
learned  there  the  indispensable  need  for  an  Assembly.  His 
commission  from  Charles  made  no  mention  of  one ;  but,  in 
1629,  before  leaving  England,  he  drew  up  for  the  King's  con- 
sideration a  list  of  seven  "Propositions  touching  Virginia." 
One  of  these  propositions  asked  for  a  representative  Assembly  as 
part  of  the  government.  The  King  seems  to  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  this  request  from  the  courtier-governor  more  than 
by  the  petitions  of  the  colony.  He  was  just  entering  upon 
his  eleven-year  period  of  "  No  Parliament "  in  England,2  but, 

1  On  two  occasions,  a  number  of  leading  colonists  met  with  the  Council  to 
decide  important  matters,  forming  a  sort  of  "  Assembly." 

2  Modem  History,  §  243. 


40  VIRGINIA  A  ROYAL  PROVINCE,  1624-1660 

in  his  answer  to  Harvey,  lie  approved  an  Assembly  for  Virginia.1 
With  this  sanction,  the  Assembly  continued  regularly ;  and 
formal  directions  to  call  Assemblies  at  regular  intervals  became 
a  part  in  future  of  each  governor's  instructions.2 

35.  The  central  government  of  the  royal  colony  consisted,  then,  of 
three  elements :  — 

a.  The  governor,  appointed  by  the  king  and  acting  under  instructions 
from  him.  In  dignity,  the  governor  was  the  chief  part  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  his  authority  was  very  great.  True,  he  could  do  little  without 
the  approval  of  his  Council  of  State  ;  but  he  had  much  influence  over 
that  body,  and  he  possessed  the  right  of  absolute  veto  over  both  Council 
and  Assembly. 

b.  The  Council  of  State  (containing  the  governor  as  its  president). 
This  body  comprised  from  ten  to  twenty  leading  Virginia  gentlemen 
appointed  by  the  king.  It  met  frequently  to  assist  and  advise  the  gov- 
ernor, and  to  act  as  a  high  court  of  justice. 

c.  The  General  Assembly  (consisting  of  the  Council  of  State  and  a 
larger  number  of  burgesses  elected  by  the  counties  and  principal  cities). 
The  Assembly  could  meet  only  on  the  governor's  summons  (usually  once 
or  twice  a  year,  for  only  a  few  weeks  each  time),  and  it  could  be  dis- 
solved by  him  at  will.  Its  business  was  mainly  legislative,  though  it  was 
also  the  highest  judicial  court  if  it  chose  to  hear  appeals  from  the  Council. 
It  was  the  only  body  to  make  laws  or  raise  taxes  ;  and,  more  and  more, 
it  tended  to  become  the  dominant  element  in  government. 

36.  The  Mutiny  of  1635.  —  For  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century 
after  the  restoration  of  the  Assembly,  the  political  history 
of  the  colony  has  only  one  striking  episode.  This  was  con- 
nected with  the  administration  of  Governor  Harvey.  De- 
spite his  "  proposition "  for  an  Assembly,  Harvey  was  known 
to  sympathize  with  arbitrary  rule.     For  this  reason,  or  because 

1  Source  Book,  No.  32. 

2  See  extract  from  Berkeley's  instructions  (1642)  in  Source  Book,  No.  32,  «. 
So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  all  American  historians  assert  or  imply  that  the 
Assembly  continued,  after  a  short  interruption,  without  English  sanction 
until  Wyatt's  commission  of  1639.  Too  little  attention  seems  to  have  been 
paid  to  the  Harvey  Propositions  and  the  royal  reply.  The  continuance  of  the 
Assembly  was  dne,  certainly,  to  the  spirit  of  the  colonists,  —  which  was  such 
that  not  even  Harvey  dared  try  to  rule  without  that  organ  of  government; 
but  it  is  equally  clear  that,  in  form,  royal  sanction  of  some  kind  preceded  the 
call  for  each  meeting  after  the  colony  became  a  royal  province. 


POLITICAL  GAINS  UNDER  THE   COMMONWEALTH     41 

of  some  attempt  by  him  to  levy  taxes,  the  Assembly  of  1632  re- 
enacted,  ivordfor  word,  the  great  law  of  1624  regarding  represen- 
tation and  taxation.  Harvey  clashed  continually  with  the 
settlers,  and  complained  bitterly  to  the  authorities  in  England 
about  the  "self-willed  government"  in  Virginia.  Finally,  he 
tried  to  arrest  some  of  his  Council  for  "  treason."  Instead, 
the  Council  "thrust  him  out  of  his  government,"  sent  him 
prisoner  to  England,  and  chose  John  West  governor  in  his 
place.  The  Assembly  at  once  ratified  this  bloodless  revolu- 
tion. Two  years  later,  the  king  restored  Harvey  for  a  time, 
but  replaced  him,  in  1639,  by  the  liberal  Wyatt,  restoring  to 
office,  at  the  same  time,  the  Councilors  who  had  deposed 
Harvey. 

In  1641  Sir  William  Berkeley  was  sent  over  as  governor. 
He  had  been  an  ardent  royalist  in  England,  and  it  is  signifi- 
cant that  his  first  Assembly  enacted  verbatim,  for  the  third 
time,  the  law  of  1624  regarding  taxation.  Soon  after  his  ap- 
pointment, however,  the  Civil  War  began  in  England,  and 
during  that  struggle,  loyal  sentiment  was  strong  enough  in 
Virginia  to  secure  harmony  with  the  King's  governor.  On  his 
part,  Berkeley  ruled  with  much  moderation,  keeping  in  touch 
with  the  Assembly  and  showing  no  promise  of  the  tyranny 
which  was  to  mark  his  second  governorship  after  the  English 
Restoration  (§§  103-105). 
$  _  37.  Enlarged  Self-government  under  the  Commonwealth.  —  In 
J^  1649,  after  the  Civil  War,  England  for  a  time  became  a  repub- 
lican "Commonwealth."  Parliament  soon  sent  commissioners 
to  America  to  secure  the  obedience  of  the  colonies.  Berkeley 
wished  to  resist  the  officers,  but  the  Assembly  quietly  set  him 
aside  and  made  terms.1  The  government  was  reorganized  so 
as  to  put  more  power  into  the  hands  of  the  Burgesses  (whom 
Parliament  could  trust  better  than  the  more  aristocratic  ele- 
ments). Each  year  a  House  of  Burgesses  was  to  be  chosen  as 
formerly,  but  this  body  was  now  to  elect  the  governor  and  Coun- 

1  The  treaty  is  given  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  34.    Let  the  class  find  author- 
ity in  it  for  as  many  statements  below  as  possible. 


42  VIRGINIA   A  ROYAL  PROVINCE,  1624-1660 

cil.1  For  the  first  time,  the 'government  of  England  recognized 
in  full  the  colonial  Assembly's  sole  control  over  taxation  and 
its  practical  control  over  all  colonial  legislation.  During  the 
next  nine  years  (1652-1660),  Virginia  was  almost  an  inde- 
pendent and  democratic  state. 

This  democratic  self-government  was  vigorously  maintained.  On  one 
occasion  (1657),  a  dispute  arose  between  the  Burgesses  and  the  gov- 
ernor. Governor  Matthews  and  the  Council  then  declared  the  Assembly 
dissolved  (as  a  royal  governor  would  have  done).  The  Burgesses  held, 
logically,  that  the  governor,  having  been  made  by  them,  could  not  un- 
make them,  and  that  "  we  are  not  dissoluable  by  any  power  yet  extant  in 
Virginia  but  our  owne."  Matthews  threatened  to  refer  the  matter  to 
England.  The  Burgesses  then  deposed  him,  and  proceeded  to  reelect 
him  upon  condition  that  he  acknowledge  their  supreme  authority. 

A  year  later,  when  Cromwell  died  and  his  son  became  Lord  Protector 
in  England,  a  new  commission  was  sent  to  Virginia,  authorizing  the 
"Governor  and  his  Council'1  to  manage  "the  affaires  of  that  colony 
according  to  such  good  lawes  and  custones  .  .  .  as  .  .  .  heretofore 
used."  This  language  might  be  taken  to  ignore  the  Burgesses  ;  but  that 
body  obliged  the  Governor  and  Council  to  appear  in  its  presence  and 
acknowledge  "the  supreme  power  to  be  by  the  present  laws  resident  in 
the  Grand  Assembly."  The  Governor  was  required  also  to  "  joyne  .  .  . 
in  an  address  [to  England]  for  confirmation  of  their  present  priviledges 
.  .  .  that  what  was  their  priviledge  now  might  be  .  .  .  their  posterities 
hereafter." 

In  March,  1660,  Governor  Matthews  died.  Charles  II  had  just  re- 
turned to  the  throne  in  England.  The  Assembly  wished  to  conciliate 
Charles  ;  and  so  Berkeley,  who  had  been  living  quietly  in  Virginia  during 
the  Commonwealth,  was  elected  governor.  An  effort  was  made  to 
save  Commonwealth  liberties  by  enacting  that  Berkeley  "  governe  accord- 
ing to  the  ancient  lawes  of  England  and  the  established  lawes  of  this 
country,  and  .  .  .  that  once  in  two  years  at  least  he  call  a  Grand  Assem- 
bly, and  that  he  do  not  dissolve  this  Assembly  without  the  consente  of  the 
major  part  of  the  House."  The  failure  of  this  attempt  to  restrict  the 
new  governor  belongs  to  a  later  chapter  (§§  103-105). 

1  During  the  Commonwealth,  the  Burgesses  and  Council  sat>  in  two 
"Houses,"  but  after  the  Restoration  the  two  orders  again  sat  together,  for 
the  most  part,  until  their  final  separation  in  1688  (§  106,  note). 


POLITICAL  GAINS  UNDER  THE  COMMONWEALTH       43 

For  Further  Reading.  — This  text-book  can  be  used,  like  others  of  its 
kind,  with  the  usual  amount  of  supplementary  reading  from  standard 
"secondary"  works.  The  author  has  planned,  however,  for  Part  I 
to  be  accompanied  instead  with  a  rather  full  study  of  illustrative 
"sources"  which  he  has  collected  for  the  purpose  in  a  Source  Book. 
Nos.  1-35  of  that  volume  may  be  used  to  advantage  with  this 
chapter.  Frequent  directions  and  suggestions  for  the  use  of  the  more 
important  documents  there  are  given  in  this  book.  In  addition,  the 
teacher  will  rind  many  ways  to  relate  the  sources  to  the  narrative.  Oc- 
casional lessons  may  well  be  given  wholly  upon  the  Source  Book.  It  is 
well  to  ask  a  student  to  find  in  a  given  document  some  important  fact 
which  is  not  mentioned  in  this  text-book  but  which  might  well  be  men- 
tioned. In  particular,  it  is  a  good  exercise  to  set  a  student  to  find  in  a 
given  "source"  the  authority  for  some  statement  in  the  text,  or  to  find  a 
possible  basis  for  deciding  between  two  authorities  who  differ  about  a 
matter  covered  by  the  "source."  The  teacher  will  bear  in  mind,  of 
course,  that  the  limited  number  of  sources  possible  in  a  school  volume 
must,  on  the  whole,  be  illustrative  of  judgments,  rather  than  a  basis  for 
judgments.  Still,  skillful  handling  can  give  the  class  some  idea  of  histor- 
ical material  and  of  how  it  is  to  be  used. 

For  the  class  which  does  not  use  the  Source  Book,  or  for  the  student 
who,  in  addition  to  it,  finds  time  for  reading,  the  following  bibliography 
is  suggested  in  connection  with  early  Virginia. 

Eggleston,  Beginners  of  a  Nation,  1-97  (charming  and  scholarly)  ; 
Fiske,  Old  Virginia  and  HerNeighhors,  I,  1-224 ;  Channing,  History  of 
the  United  States,  I,  115-241 ;  Osgood,  American  Colonies  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century,  I,  1-99,  and  III,  1-141  (the  most  critical  work,  but  not 
very  attractive)  ;  Tyler,  English  in  America,  1-117  (readable,  but  not 
always  cautious  in  statement).  Doyle's  English  Colonies,  I,  contains 
much  good  material,  but  it  is  not  particularly  well  presented  for  young 
people  ;  it  appeared  before  any  of  the  works  mentioned  above,  and  was 
for  a  time  the  most  scholarly  work  on  the  colonies.  Alexander  Brown's 
First  Bepublic  in  America  and  English  Politics  in  Early  Virginian  His- 
tory extend  to  about  1625 ;  they  contain  much  valuable  material  for  an 
experienced  teacher,  but  they  are  too  detailed,  and  too  partisan,  for 
students. 

Keferences  to  collections  of  sources  are  given  in  the  Source  Book. 

In  fiction,  mention  may  be  made,  for  this  period,  of  Mary  Johnston's 
To  Have  and  to  Hold  and  Eggleston's  Pochahontas  and  Powhatan. 
Kingsley's  Westward  Ho  pictures  the  rivalry  between  England  and  Spain 
in  the  Old  World  and  the  New. 


MARYLAND 


Suggestions  and  Questions  for  Study  and  Review 

1.  Quote  from  memory  three  or  four  memorable  sentences  or  phrases 
(such  as  the  quotations  at  the  head  of  the  chapter  and  in  §  17,  a). 

2.  Make  a  syllabus  for  Virginia  to  1660. 

3.  Let  each  student  present  a  list  of  twelve  or  fifteen  questions  for  the 
others  to  answer,  — the  instructor  criticizing  when  necessary. 

4.  Sample  Questions.  —  (4)  Who  chose  the  chief  executive  in  Virginia 
in  1607?  In  1611?  In  1620  ?  In  1625  ?  In  1655?  (2)  Distinguish  between 
the  Virginia  General  Assembly  and  the  Virginia  Company's  Great  and  Gen- 
eral Court,  as  to  place,  composition,  and  powers.  (-&)  Did  any  of  the 
royal  charters  to  the  Virginia  Company  suggest  self-government  for  the 
settlers  ?  Justify  the  answer.  (4)  When  and  why  did  the  Ordinance  of 
1621  cease  to  be  valid  ?  (5)  Distinguish  two  stages  in  the  attack  of  King 
James  upon  the  liberal*  London  Company.  (6)  Who  had  authority  to 
make  laws  for  the  Virginians  in  1608  ?  In  1610  ?  In  1616  ?  In  1621  ?  In 
1631  ?  (7)  What  facts  about  the  colony  in  this  period,  not  referred  to 
in  the  text  above,  can  you  find  in  the  Source  Book  ? 

(Students  should  be  trained  to  answer  briefly  but  inclusively.  For  the 
fifth  question,  some  such  answer  as  the  following  should  be  required  : 
First  he  tried  in  vain  to  secure  control  of  the  Company  by  dominating  its 
elections  in  1620  and  1622 ;  then,  he  secured  its  overthrow  through  a 
decree  of  his  subservient  courts  against  the  validity  of  the  Company's 
charter,  in  1624.) 

IV.    MARYLAND :    A  PROPRIETARY  PROVINCE 

From  1607  to  1620  Virginia  was  the  only  English  colony  on  the  con- 
tinent. Then  came  the  beginnings  of  New  England ;  but  for  some  time 
more  the  two  groups  of  colonies,  north  and  south,  were  separated  by 
vast  stretches  of  wilderness  and  had  little  to  do  with  each  other's 
development.  It  is  convenient,  therefore,  to  pass  at  once  to  Maryland, 
Virginia's  only  neighbor  in  the  first  half  century. 

A.     Origins 

38.  George  Calvert. — Like  early  Virginia,  Maryland  was  a  proprie- 
tary colony,  but  the  proprieter  was  an  individual.  The  plan  of  colonization 
returned  to  that  of  Raleigh's  time.  George  Calvert,  a  high-minded  gentle- 
man, had  been  interested  for  many  years  in  the  expansion  of  England. 
He  was  a  member  of  the  Virginia  Company  after  1609  and  of  the  Plymouth 
Council  of  1620  (§  45) ;  and  in  1621,  while  still  a  member  of  these  corpora- 
tions, he  took  upon  his  own  shoulders  a  separate  attempt  to  found  a  great 


ORIGINS  45 

feudal  domain  in  Newfoundland.  He  bought  a  vast  tract  there  from  an 
earlier  adventurer,  named  it  Avalon,  and  sent  out  several  bodies  of  settlers. 
In  1623  King  James  confirmed  Calvert's  title  to  this  province,  and  granted 
him  remarkable  powers  over  the  settlers,  in  a  charter  which  was  to  be 
copied  a  few  years  later  ki  the  grant  of  Maryland. 

Soon  after  receiving  the  charter  for  Avalon,  Calvert  become  a  con- 
vert to  Catholicism,  which  was  then  persecuted  sternly  in  England.  His 
life  so  far  had  been  devoted  mainly  to  the  public  service,  but  this  step 
compelled  him  to  withdraw  from  office.  To  reward  his  past  services, 
King  James  made  him  Baron  of  Baltimore.  The  new  peer  now  spent 
some  time  in  his  colony,  only  to  learn  by  bitter  experience  that  he  had 
been  misled  sadly  as  to  its  climate  and  wealth.1  Broken  in  health  and 
fortune,  he  finally  abandoned  that  harsh  location,  and  applied  to  King 
Charles  for  a  more  southerly  province.  Before  the  formalities  connected 
with  a  new  grant  were  completed,  Baltimore  died.  But  in  1632  the 
Charter  for  Maryland  was  issued  to  his  son,  Cecelius  Calvert ;  and,  two 
years  later,  a  settlement  of  some  two  hundred  souls  was  established  in  the 
new  colony. 

39.  The  charter  of  1632  sanctioned  representative  self-govern- 
ment. It  put  the  head  of  the  Baltimore  family  in  the  position, 
practically,  of  a  constitutional  king  over  the  settlers;  but  his 
great  authority  was  limited  by  one  supreme  provision,  not 
found  in  the  charter  to  Raleigh.  In  raising  taxes  and  making 
laws,  the  proprietor  could  act  only  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
an  Assembly  of  the  freemen 2  or  of  their  representatives. 

This  recognition  of  political  rights  for  the  settlers,  in  a  royal  charter, 
marks  an  onward  step  in  the  history  of  liberty.  The  creation  of  the 
Virginia  Assembly,  and  the  devotion  of  the  Virginians  to  it,  had  borne 
fruit.  Seemingly,  between  1620  and  1630,  it  became  a  settled  conviction 
for  all  Englishmen,  at  last  even  for  the  court  circle  (§  34),  that  coloni- 
zation in  America  was  possible  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  large  measure  of 
self-government.8  y 

1  See  Baltimore's  letter  to  King  Charles  in  Source  Book,  No.  41.  The  name 
Avalon,  with  such  terms  as  Bay  of  Flowers  and  Harbor  of  Heartsease,  suggest 
the  rosy  anticipations  of  the  first  expedition  to  Newfoundland.    Cf.  §  2,  note. 

2  In  practice  this  term  in  Maryland  was  used  as  equivalent  to  freeholders. 

3  The  Source  Book  gives  the  charter  in  full,  and  — with  comment— the 
clauses  for  self-government  in  the  other  royal  charters  of  the  period  :  the  one 
to  Baltimore  for  Avalon  (1623),  and  those  to  Robert  Heath  and  Edmund 
Plowden  for  their  projects  in  Carolina  (1629)  and  in  "  New  Albion  "  (1634). 


46     j^        ,  MARYLAND 

B.    Political  Development 

"  It  turned  out,  therefore,  that  the  proprietary's  power  was  so  circum- 
scribed that  the  institutions  of  Maryland  ultimately  became  the  most  liberal 
of  any  outside  of  Connecticut  and  llhode  Island."11  —  Channing,  History 
of  the  United  States,  I,  245. 

'•'■Among  the  people  of  Lord  Baltimore'' s  colony,  as  among  English- 
speaking  people  in  general,  one  might  observe  a  fierce  spirit  of  political 
liberty  coupled  with  an  ingrained  respect  for  law  and  a  disposition  to 
achieve  results  by  argument  rather  than  by  violence.'1'' — Fiske,  Old  Vir- 
ginia, II,  149. 

40.  —  The  Right  of  the  Assembly  to  initiate  Legislation.  —  The 
proprietors  of  Maryland  did  not  live  in  the  colony.  They 
ruled  it  through  vicegerents,  or  governors,  whom  they  ap- 
pointed or  dismissed  at  will,  and  to  whom  they  delegated  such 
authority  as  they  chose.  The  governor  was  assisted  by  a 
small  Council,  also  appointed  by  the  proprietor.  At  first  this 
proprietary  machinery  was  the  central  fact  in  the  government. 
The  Assembly,  the  only  popular  element,  could  meet  only  at 
the  governors  call.  But  out  of  this  feudal  fief  there  was  to 
grow  a  democratic  commonwealth,  with  the  Assembly  for  the 
center  of  authority.  This  transformation  occupied  a  century,  but 
the  most  important  steps  were  taken  in  the  first  twenty  years. 

Lord  Baltimore's  instructions  to  the  first  governor  directed 
him  to  call  an  Assembly,  but  authorized  him  to  adjourn  and 
dissolve  it  at  will  and  to  veto  any  of  its  acts.  Baltimore  him- 
self reserved  a  further  veto.  Moreover,  he  intended  to  keep 
for  himself  the  sole  right  to  initiate  legislation.  He  meant  to 
draw  up  all  laws  in  full,  and  to  submit  them  to  the  Assembly 
only  for  approval  or  rejection.  The  charter  declared  that  he 
was  to  make  laws  "  with  the  advice  and  consent "  of  the  free- 
men. But  this  phrase  was  the  same  that  English  kings  had 
used  for  centuries  to  express  the  division  of  power  between  them- 
selves and  parliament ;  and  meantime  parliament  had  come  to 
be  the  real  lawmaking  power.  Accordingly,  the  people  of  Mary- 
land at  once  insisted  upon  taking  the  words  in  the  sense  which 
history  had  given  them,  rather  than  in  their  literal  meaning. 


POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  47 

The  first  Assembly  (1635)  passed  a  code  of  laws.  Baltimore  vetoed 
them  all,  on  the  ground  that  the  Assembly  had  exceeded  its  authority.  To 
the  next  Assembly  (1638)  Baltimore  sent  a  carefully  drawn  body  of  laws. 
After  full  debate,  these  were  rejected  by  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  repre- 
sentatives. Then  the  Assembly  passed  a  number  of  bills,  several  of  them 
based  upon  those  that  had  been  presented  by  Baltimore  ;  but  all  these  fell 
before  the  proprietor's  veto.  In  the  following  year,  however,  Baltimore 
wisely  gave  way.  In  a  letter  to  the  Assembly  he  announced  his  willingness 
that  it  should  share  with  him  in  this  right  of  initiating  laws.  Even  this 
victory  did  not  satisfy  the  champions  of  popular  rights.  The  Assembly 
urged  that  Baltimore  ought  not  to  present  fully  drawn  acts  at  any  time, 
but,  at  the  most,  only  "  heads  of  bills,"  leaving  all  details  to  be  worked 
out  by  the  colonial  legislature  ;  and  after  1650  this  policy  prevailed. 

41.    The  Assembly  becomes   Representative  and  Bicameral. — 

Another  contest  took  place  over  the  form  of  the  Assembly. 
Representative  government,  simple  as  it  seems  to  us,  was  not 
thoroughly  understood  in  the  seventeenth  century,  even  by 
Englishmen;  and  events  in  Maryland  mark  great  progress  in 
clearing  up  ideas  on  the  subject.  The  first  Assemblies  were 
"primary"  gatherings,  to  which  all  freemen  might  come;  but 
to  the  spring  Assembly  of  1639  each  "hundred"  (the  local 
unit  in  early  Maryland)  chose  two  delegates.  Notwithstanding 
this,  from  one  of  the  hundreds  there  appeared  two  other  men 
claiming  a  right  to  sit  as  members  because  they  "  had  not  con- 
sented" to  the  election  !  Stranger  still,  the  absurd  claim  was 
allowed.  But  the  same  Assembly  decreed  that  in  future  there 
should  sit  only  delegates  duly  chosen  and  gentlemen  summoned 
by  the  governor's  personal  writs.  In  1641  a  defeated  candi- 
date claimed  a  right  to  sit  "  in  his  own  person,"  but  this  time 
the  plea  was  promptly  denied. 

At  first  the  Council  sat  as  part  of  the  Assembly  in  one  body 
with  the  freemen  or  their  delegates.  Moreover,  the  governor 
summoned  other  gentlemen,  as  many  as  he  pleased,  by  personal 
writs,  independent  of  election.  These  appointed  members  sym- 
pathized naturally  with  the  proprietor  and  the  governor,  while 
the  delegates  sometimes  stood  for  opposite  interests.  As  early 
as  1642  the  differences  between  the  two  elements,  appointed 


48  MARYLAND 

and  elected,  led  the  representatives  to  propose  a  division  into 
two  "  Houses."  The  attempt  failed  because  of  the  governor's 
veto ;  but  the  arrangement  became  law  in  1650.1 

Thus  the  first  generation  of  Marylanders  won  from  the  Proprietor  im- 
portant rights  guaranteed  to  him  by  the  charter.  The  form  of  the  As- 
sembly was  no  longer  determined  by  him  from  time  to  time  :  it  was  fixed, 
to  suit  democratic  desires,  by  a  lav)  of  the  Assembly.  The  revolutionary 
Assembly  of  1642  attempted  also  to  secure  stated  meetings,  independent 
of  a  governor's  call,  and  to  do  away  with  the  governor's  right  of  dissolu- 
tion. In  form,  these  radical  attempts  failed  ;  but  in  reality  the  Assembly 
soon  learned  to  control  its  own  sittings,  except  in  extreme  crises,  through 
its  power  over  taxation.  It  granted  supplies  only  for  a  year  at  a  time 
(so  that  it  had  to  be  called  each  year),  and  it  deferred  this  vote  of  sup- 
plies in  each  session  until  it  was  ready  to  adjourn. 

C.     Religious  Toleration 

42.  A  Refuge  for  Catholics.  —  After  George  Calvert's  conversion  to 
Catholicism,  a  religious  design  was  added  to  his  earlier  motives  for  coloni- 
zation. He  and  his  son  intended  that  their  new  colony  should  be  a  ref- 
uge for  their  co-religionists  in  England.  The  charter,  it  is  true,  makes 
no  reference  to  religious  toleration  and  no  provision  for  Catholic  worship 
(which  was  forbidden  rigorously  by  the  English  law).  The  only  clause 
bearing  directly  upon  the  matter  is  a  passage  which  gives  Baltimore 
power  to  appoint  clergymen  to  positions,  and  to  consecrate  church  build- 
ings, "according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  England."  So  far  as  this 
goes,  it  establishes  Episcopacy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  charter  omits  the 
usual  reference  to  the  oath  of  supremacy.  Probably  there  was  an  under- 
standing between  king  and  proprietor  that  Catholics  would  not  be 
molested  ;  but  Maryland  was  never  a  Catholic  colony  in  the  sense  that 
the  Catholics  could  have  made  their  religion  the  state  religion,  or  that 
they  could  have  excluded  other  sects.  The  most  that  the  devout,  high- 
minded  Baltimore  could  do  for  his  fellow  worshipers,  —  possibly  all  that 
he  wished  to  do,  —  was  to  secure  toleration  for  them  by  compelling  them 
to  tolerate  others.2 

1  The  first  colony  to  establish  a  bicameral  legislature  was  Massachusetts 
in  1644  (§  69)  ;  but  the  attempt  came  first  in  Maryland. 

2  From  the  first  there  were  many  Protestants  in  the  colony,  possibly  a 
majority,  though  for  a  time  the  leaders  were  mainly  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Baltimore's  instructions  to  the  governor  of  the  first  expedition  enjoined  him 
to  permit  no  scandal  or  offense  to  be  given  to  any  of  the  Protestants  and  to 


TOLERATION  AND  PERSECUTION  49 

43.  The  Toleration  Act.  —  By  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  in  England, 
the  Puritans  had  begun  to  swarm  into  Maryland  and  were  trying  to 
secure  political  supremacy  there.  When  the  Puritan  Commonwealth 
was  established  in  England,  Lord  Baltimore,  to  prevent  disputes  that 
might  lose  him  his  colony,  proposed  a  wise  law  which  was  finally 
adopted  by  the  Assembly  and  which  is  known  as  the  Toleration  Act  of 
1649.  This  great  law  it  is  true,  threatened  death  to  all  non-Christians 
(including  Jews  and  any  Unitarians  of  that  day) ;  but  it  was  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  policy  of  almost  all  the  governments  of  the  world.  It 
aimed  to  prevent  acrimonious  controversy  between  sects,  and  it  provided 
that  "  no  person  .  .  .  professing  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  in  any 
wise  moleste'H  or  discountenanced  for  his  or  her  religion."1 

44.  Later  Religious  History:  Persecution  of  the  Catholics.  — The 
Parliamentary  Commissioners  of  1652  (§37)  wished  to  deprive  Baltimore 
of  his  province.  Thus  the  Puritans  came  into  control  of  the  Assembly ; 
and,  in  1654,  they  decreed  that  toleration  should  not  extend  to  Catholics 
or  Episcopalians.  Cromwell,  however,  recognized  Baltimore's  rights,  and 
in  1657  the  Toleration  Act  was  restored.  After  the  English  Revolution 
of  1688,  however,  the  Catholic  Baltimore  family  was  deprived  of  all  politi- 
cal power  ;  and,  for  a  generation,  Maryland  became  a  royal  province.  In 
1715  the  Lord  Baltimore  of  the  day,  having  declared  himself  a  convert  to 
Protestantism,  recovered  his  authority.  Meantime  the  Episcopal  Church 
had  been  established  in  Maryland  and  ferocious  statutes2  had  been 
enacted  against  Catholics,  to  blacken  the  law  books  through  the  rest  of 
the  colonial  period. 

For  Futher  Reading. — The  narrative  is  given  admirably  in  either 
Channing's  United  States,  I,  241-271,  or  more  fully  inFiske's  Old  Virginia 
and  Her  Neighbors,  I,  255-318,  II,  131-173.  Browne's  Maryland  (1-183), 
in  the  "  Commonwealth  "  series,  is  good.  A  critical  study  may  be  found 
in  Osgood's  American  Colonies,  II,  5-10,  58-94. 

see  that  Catholic  services  be  performed  "as  privately  as  maybe."  One  of 
the  proprietor's  chief  difficulties  was  to  enforce  this  wise  and  necessary  policy 
upon  zealots  among  his  followers. 

1  See  important  passages  in  Source  Book,  No.  45,  and  cf .  Fiske's  Old  Vir- 
ginia, I,  309-311. 

2  See  brief  statement  in  Fiske,  Old  Virginia,  II,  167. 


7 


CHAPTER   II 

NEW   ENGLAND    TO    1660 

"After  all  that  can  be  said  for  material  and  intellectual  advantages,  it 
remains  true  that  moral  causes  determine  the  greatness  of  nations ;  and 
no  nation  ever  started  on  its  career  with  a  larger  proportion  of  strong 
characters  or  a  higher  level  of  moral  earnestness  than  the  English  col- 
onies in  America.''''  —  Lecky,  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  II,  2. 

I.    COMMERCE  AND  PURITANISM  AS  COLONIZING  FORCES 

45.  Early  Attempts.  The  New  England  Council.  —  After  Gilbert's 
failure  (§  21),  the  English  neglected  the  North  Atlantic  coast  for  many 
years.  Soon  after  1600,  however,  several  voyages  were  made  with  a  view 
to  settlement  at  various  points  between  Cape  Cod  and  the  St.  Lawrence  ; 
and,  in  particular,  in  1607,  the  Plymouth  branch  of  the  Virginia  Com- 
pany sent  a  promising  expedition  to  the  mouth  of  the  Kennebec.  A 
series  of  misfortunes  caused  this  colony  to  be  abandoned,  like  all  its 
predecessors ;  and  there  followed  another  period  of  neglect,  until  1620. 
Then,  roused  by  the  success  at  Jamestown,  some  members  of  the 
Plymouth  Company  reorganized  as  "The  Council  resident  in  Plymouth 
...  for  the  planting  of  New  England,'1  and  a  royal  charter  gave  this 
body  powers  similar  to  those  of  the  London  Company,  with  a  grant  of  all 
North  America  between  the  fortieth  parallel  and  the  forty-eighth.1 

This  proprietary  Council  sent  out  no  colonists  itself.  Instead,  it  sold 
or  granted  tracts  of  land,  with  various  privileges,  to  adventurers  who 
undertook  to  found  settlements.  Two  small  trading  stations  were  estab- 
lished in  this  way  ;  and  then  (in  1623)  there  followed  a  more  ambitious 
attempt.  Robert  Gorges,  son  of  the  most  active  member  of  the  Plymouth 
Council,  was  granted  lands  near  Boston  harbor,  with  a  charter  empower- 

1  Source  Book,  No.  42.  The  Company  is  styled  sometimes  The  Plymouth 
Council,  sometimes  The  Council  for  New  England,  or  The  New  England 
Council.  Six  years  earlier,  Captain  John  Smith,  then  in  the  employ  of  gen- 
tlemen connected  with  the  old  Plymouth  Company,  had  explored  and  mapped 

50 


COMMERCIAL  ATTEMPTS 


51 


ing  him  to  rule  settlers  "  according  to  such  lawes  as  shall  be  hereafter 
estaW&hed  by  public  authority  of  the  state  assembled  in  Parliament  in 
New  England."11  1 

Gorges  brought  to  America  an  excellent  company,  containing  several 
"gentlemen  "  and  two  clergymen,  with  farmers,  traders,  and  mechanics  ; 
but  after  one  winter  he  returned  home,2  and  his  followers  soon  dispersed. 


VIRGINIA  AND 

NEW  ENGLAND 

1620 


these  northern  coasts,  and  had  given  to  the  region  the  name  New  England, 
suggested,  the  map  says,  by  Prince  Charles.  The  royal  charter  of  1(320 
officially  adopted  this  name  for  the  vast  district  previously  known  vaguely 
as  "  the  northern  parts  of  Virginia." 

1  The  Plymouth  Council  was  an  aristocratic  body,  composed  mainly  of  the 
nobility.  This  clause  in  a  charter  from  that  body,  together  with  a  still  earlier 
charter  issued  to  the  Pilgrim  colony  (§  47),  shows  that  the  influence  of  the 
London  Company  charters  to  the  Virginians  was  far-reaching.  Cf.  §  39.  Ex- 
tracts from  the  Gorges  charter  and  Ferdinando  Gorges'  account  of  the  expedi- 
tion are  given  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  51. 

2  Gorges  had  also  been  commissioned  by  the  New  England  Council  as 
"  General  Governor  "  of  all  settlements  in  their  territory.  This  caused  some 
jealousies.      The   Pilgrim  historian,   Bradford,   says,   with   unusually   grim 


52  BEGINNINGS  OF  NEW  ENGLAND 

When  the  main  Puritan  migration  began,  six  years  later,  there  survived 
from  all  these  commercial  undertakings  only  seven  small  settlements, 
like  that  of  Blackstone  at  Boston,  with  a  total  population  of  some  fifty 
souls.  One  other  colony — a  weak  Puritan  settlement  at  Plymouth  — 
had  already  appeared  ;  but  its  location  in  New  P^ngland  had  been  unin- 
tentional ;  and  in  purpose  and  development  (§§  47-53)  it  ran  a  course 
distinct  from  the  movements  we  have  been  tracing. 

46.    English  Puritanism  becomes  a  Factor  in  Colonization.  —  The 

factors  so  far  at  work  in  settling  New  England  were  essen- 
tially those  that  had  finally  succeeded  in  Virginia.  If  anything, 
the  New  England  movement  had  drawn  less  from  patriotic 
and  missionary  motives.  This  lack  of  idealism  was  now  to 
be  more  than  made  good.  Success  in  New  England  came 
from  a  new  element  just  ready  to  appear  as  a  colonizing  for^. 
This  force  was  Puritanism. 

The  "established''  church  in  England  was  the  Episcopalian; 
and  within  that  church  the  dominant  party  had  strong  "  High- 
church  "  leanings.  This  party,  too,  was  ardently  supported  by 
the  royal  "  head  of  the  church,"  —  Elizabeth,  James,  Charles, 
in  turn ;  but  it  was  engaged  in  constant  struggle  with  a  large, 
aggressive  Puritan  element. 

Puritanism  was  much  more  than  a  religious  sect.  It  was  an  ardent  aspi- 
ration for  reform,  personal  and  social.  In  politics,  it  stood  for  an  advance 
in  popular  rights  ;  in  conduct,  for  stricter  and  higher  morality;  in  theol- 
ogy, for  the  stern  doctrines  of  Calvinism  (which  appealed  powerfully  to 
the  strongest  souls  of  that  age);  in  church  matters,  for  an  extension  of 
the  "reformation  "  that  had  cut  off  the  English  Church  from  Rome. 

Two  groups  of  Puritans,  in  religious  organization,  stood  in 
sharp  opposition  to  one  another,  —  the  influential  "  Loic- 
church  "  element  within  the  church,  and  the  despised  Separatists 
outside  of  it.  The  Low-churchmen  had  no  wish  to  separate 
church   and   state.      They   wished   one   national  church,  —  a 

humor,  that  Gorges  departed,  "  haveing  scarce  saluted  the  cuntrie  of  his  Gov- 
ernment, not  finding  the  state  of  things  hear  to  answer  his  quallitie  " ;  but 
the  fact  seems  to  be  that  this  very  gallant  gentleman  found  himself  without 
funds  enough  to  carry  on  his  enterprise. 


PURITANISM  AS  A  FACTOR  53 

Low-church  church,  —  to  which  everybody  within  England 
should  conform.  They  desired  to  make  the  church  a  mdre  far- 
reaching  moral  power.  To  that  end  they  aimed  to  introduce 
more  preaching  into  the  service  and  to  simplify  ceremonies, — 
to  do  away  with  the  surplice,  with  the  ring  in  the  marriage 
service,  with  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  and  perhaps 
with  the  prayer  book.  As  a  body,  for  a  long  time,  they  did 
not  care  to  change  radically  the  organization  of  the  English 
Church ;  but  they  looked  upon  all  church  machinery  as  of 
human,  not  of  divine,  institution,  and  some  among  them  spoke 
with  scant  respect  of  bishops.  From  the  extreme  wing  of  this 
party  came  the  men  who  were  to  found  Massachusetts  Bay. 
Once  in  America,  they  soon  threw  episcopacy  overboard,  and, 
in  many  ways,  drew  nearer  to  the  formerly  despised  Independ- 
ents. l 

The  Independents,  or  "Puritans  of  the  Separation,"  be- 
lieved that  there  should  be  no  national  church,  but  that  reli- 
gious societies  should  be  wholly  separate  from  the  state,  —  each 
local  religious  organization  a  little  ecclesiastical  democracy,  in- 
dependent in  government  even  of  other  churches.  It  was  one  of 
these  Separatist  congregations  that  founded  the  first  Puritan 
settlement  in  America,  the  Pilgrim  colony  at  Plymouth. 

II.     THE  PILGRIM  SEPARATISTS  AT  PLYMOUTH 

"Next  to  the  fugitives  whom  Moses  led  out  of  Egypt,  the  little  shipload 
of  outcasts  who  landed  at  Plymouth  .  .  .  are  destined  to  influence  the 
future  of  mankind.11  — James  Russell  Lowell,  New  England  Two  Cen- 
turies Ago. 

"If  Columbus  discovered  a  new  continent,  the  Pilgrims  discovered  the 
New  World.11  —  Goldwin  Smith. 

47.  The  Pilgrims  in  Holland.  —  To  all  other  sects  the  Separa- 
tists seemed  the  most  dangerous  of  radicals,  —  mere  anarchists 
in  religion.      They  had  been  persecuted  savagely  by  Queen 

1  In  England,  on  the  contrary,  before  the  middle  of  the  century,  this  party 
merged  itself  largely  with  the  Presbyterian  movement,  and  indeed,  for  a  time, 
made  the  English  Church  Presbyterian  {Modern  History,  §  246). 


54  PLYMOUTH   COLONY 

Elizabeth,  and  some  of  their  societies  had  fled  to  Holland.  In 
1608,  early  in  the  reign  of  James,  one  of  their  few  remaining 
churches — -a  little  congregation  from  the  village  of  Scrcoby, 
—  managed  to  escape  to  that  same  land,  "  wher,"  says  one  of 
them,1  "they  heard  was  freedome  of  Religion  for  all  men" :  — 

"...  acountrie  wher  they  must  learn  a  new  language  and  get  their 
livings  they  knew  not  how  .  .  .  not  acquainted  with  trads  or  traffique,  by 
which  that  countrie  doth  subsist,  but  .  .  .  used  to  a  plaine  countrie  life 
and  the  inocente  trade  of  husbandrey."  They  first  settled  in  Amsterdam, 
but  had  no  sooner  begun  to  feel  safe  in  some  measure,  through  toil  and 
industry,  from  "the  grime  and  grisly  face  of  povertie  coming  upon  them 
like  an  armed  man,"  than  it  seemed  needful  to  risk  the  perils  of  another 
removal.  Other  Independent  congregations  that  had  found  refuge  in  Am- 
sterdam were  torn  with  internal  dissensions.2  To  avoid  being  drawn  into 
these  fatal  squabbles,  the  Scrooby  Pilgrims  moved  to  Leyden  ;  and  "  being 
now  hear  pitchet,  they  fell  to  such  trads  and  imployments  as  they  best 
could,  valewing  peace  and  their  spirituall  comforte  above  all  other  riches 
.  .  .  injoyinge  much  sweete  and  delightefull  societie  ...  in  the  wayes  of 
God  "...  but  subject  to  such  "  greate  labor  and  hard  f are  "  that  "  many 
that  desired  to  be  with  them  .  .  .  and  to  injoye  the  libertie  of  the  gospel  1 
.  .  .  chose  the  prisons  in  England  rather  than  this  libertie  in  Holland." 

1  William  Bradford,  in  his  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation.  The  quoted 
passages  in  the  following  paragraphs  upon  Plymouth  are  from  this  source 
(Original  Narratives  edition),  when  no  other  authority  is  mentioned. 

2  The  unlettered  folk  who  made  up  most  of  the  Separatist  congregations 
were  particularly  susceptible  to  the  vagaries  of  religious  cranks,  and  were 
liable  to  "separate"  farther,  into  petty  cliques,  over  the  most  fantastic 
quibbles.  To  the  adherents  of  a  national  church  with  central  authority,  the 
unfortunate  fate  of  some  Separatist  societies  seemed  to  illustrate  the  logical 
outcome  of  their  doctrine.  From  such  disaster  this  particular  society  was 
saved  largely  by  the  breadth  and  superior  intellectuality  of  its  leaders, 
Robinson  and  Brewster.  (The  student  should  read  the  admirable  paragraphs 
on  this  topic  in  Eggleston's  Beginners  of  a  Nation,  142  ff.,  especially  149-157.) 
Of  Robinson  his  follower,  Edward  Winslow,  wrote :  "  His  study  was  peace  and 
union,  so  far  as  might  agree  with  faith  and  a  good  conscience ;  and  for  schism 
and  division,  there  was  nothing  in  the  world  more  hateful  to  him."  Pastor 
Robinson  gave  a  remarkable  evidence  of  his  willingness  to  ignore  minor  dif- 
ferences in  a  hesitating  offer  to  take  even  the  oath  of  supremacy  to  the  Eng- 
lish king:  "  the  oath  of  Supremacie  we  shall  willingly  take,  if  it  be  required 
of  us,  and  [if]  convenient  satisfaction  he  not  given  by  us  taking  the  oath  of 
Alleagence."  (Bradford,  156  ;  from  a  postscript  in  a  letter  by  Robinson  while 
the  Pilgrims  were  negotiating  for  a  charter  in  northern  Virginia.) 


THE  PILGRIMS  IN  HOLLAND  55 

48.  Reasons  for  Coming  to  America.  —  After  some  twelve 
years  in  Holland,  the  Pilgrims  decided  to  remove  once  more, 
to  the  wilds  of  North  America.  Their  motives,  as  Bradford 
gives  them,  may  be  summed  up  under  three  heads  :  (1 )  an  easier 
livelihood,  especially  for  their  children  ; l  (2)  removal  of  their 
children  from  contamination  by  the  "licentiousness  "  2  of  easy- 
going Dutch  society  ;  and  (3)  the  extension  of  their  religious 
principles.  Winslow  (another  Pilgrim  historian)  places  es- 
pecial emphasis  upon  a  fourth  reason,  —  an  ardent  patriotic 
desire  to  establish  themselves  under  the  English  flag,  —  one  of 
their  chief  griefs  in  Holland  being  that  their  children  inter- 
married with  the  Dutch  and  were  drawn  away  from  their 
English  tongue  and  manners. 

Of  these  motives,  the  third  was  beyond  doubt  the  weightiest. 
In  Holland,  it  was  plain,  there  was  no  growth  for  their  Society. 
It  would  die  out,  as  the  older  members  passed  off  the  scene ; 
and  with  it  would  die  their  peculiar  principles,  represented 
almost  alone  now  by  their  one  congregation.  But,  if  they  es- 
tablished themselves  in  a  New  World,  — 

"  a  greate  hope  and  inward  zeall  they  had  of  laying  some  good  founda- 
tion for  the  propagating  and  advancing  the  gospell  of  the  kingdome  of 
Christ  in  those  remote  parts  of  the  world  ;  yea,  though  they  should  be  but 
even  as  stepping-stones  unto  others  for  the  performing  of  so  greate  a  work." 

49.  Negotiations  for  a  Location  and  for  Funds.  —  From  the 
London  Company  the  Pilgrims  secured  a  grant  of  land  and  a 
charter;    and,  by  entering  into  partnership  with  a  group  of 

1  "  Old  age  beganne  to  steale  on  many  of  them  (and  their  greate  and  eon- 
tinuall  labours  .  .  .  hastened  it  before  the  time).  And  many  of  their  children 
that  were  of  the  best  dispositions  and  gracious  inclinations,  having  learnde  to 
bear  the  yoake  in  their  youth,  and  willing  to  bear  parte  of  their  parents  bur- 
dens, were  often  times  so  oppressed  with  heavie  labours  that  .  .  .  their  bodies 
.  .  .  became  decreped  in  their  early  youth,  the  vigour  of  nature  being  consumed 
in  the  very  budd,  as  it  were." 

■  "  But  that  which  was  ...  of  all  sorrows  most  heavie  to  be  borne,  —  many 
of  their  children,  by  these  occasions  and  the  greate  licentiousnes  in  that 
countrie,  and  the  manifold  temptations  of  the  place,  were  drawn  away  .  .  . 
into  extravagante  and  dangerous  courses,  tending  to  dissolutenes  and  the 
danger  of  their  souls." 


56  PLYMOUTH   COLONY 

London  merchants,  they  secured  the  necessary  money.  Influ- 
ential friends  of  the  enterprise  urged  King  James  to  aid  by 
granting  to  the  proposed  colony  the  privilege  of  its  own  form 
of  worship.  A  formal  promise  of  this  kind  was  not  secured ; 
but  James  allowed  it  to  be  understood  that  "  he  would  connive 
at  them  .  .  .  provided  they  carried  themselves  peaceably." 

For  many  months  this  opening  business  was  "  delayed  by  many  rubbs  ; 
for  the  Virginia  Counsell  was  so  disturbed  with  factions  as  no  bussines 
could  goe  forward"  (cf.  §27  and  Source  Book,  No.  49).  But  when 
Sandys  and  the  Puritan  faction  fully  attained  supremacy  in  that  Com- 
pany, the  matter  was  quickly  arranged,  —  the  more  quickly,  perhaps, 
because  Brewster,  one  of  the  Pilgrim  leaders,  had  been  a  trusted  steward 
of  a  manor  belonging  to  the  Sandys  family.  The  charter  was  issued  in 
the  name  of  John  Wincob  (as  trustee  for  the  Pilgrims).  Wincob  was  a 
clergyman  in  England.  He  intended  to  go  with  the  expedition,  but 
failed  to  do  so. 

The  London  merchants  who  furnished  funds  must  not  be  confused  with 
the  Virginia,  or  London,  Company.  These  "merchant  adventurers" 
subscribed  stock  in  £10  shares.1  Each  emigrant  was  counted  as  holding 
one  share  for  "adventuring"  himself.  That  is,  the  emigrant  and  the 
capital  that  brought  him  to  America  went  into  equal  partnership.  Each 
emigrant  who  furnished  money  or  supplies  was  given  shares  upon  the  same 
terms  as  the  merchants.  For  seven  years  all  wealth  produced  was  to  go 
into  a  common  stock,  but  from  that  stock  the  colonists  were  to-  have 
"  meate,  drink,  apparell,  and  all  provissions."  The  partnership  was  then 
to  be  dissolved,  each  colonist  and  each  merchant  taking  from  the  common 
property  according  to  his  shares  of  stock. 

The  arrangement  was  clumsy,  because  it  involved  a  system  of  labor  in 
common  ;  but  it  was  generous  toward  the  settlers.  Penniless  immigrants 
to  Virginia  became  "servants,"  as  separate,  helpless  individuals,  to  work 
for  seven  years  under  overseers,  and  at  the  end  of  the  time  to  receive 
merely  their  freedom  and  possibly  some  raw  land.  The  penniless  Pilgrims 
were  "  servants"  for  a  time,  in  a  sense  ;  but  only  as  one  large  body,  and 
to  a  company  of  which  they  themselves  were  part ;  while  their  persons 
were  controlled,  and  their  labors  directed,  only  by  officers  chosen  by  them- 
selves from  their  own  number. 
, 4. 

1  According  to  Captain  John  Smith,  there  were  seventy  of  the  merchants  in 
the  partnership,  who  by  1623  had  paid  in  £7000.  (Smith's  Works,  783.)  This 
is  probably  an  overstatement.  The  articles  of  partnership  are  given  by  Brad- 
ford, and  may  be  found  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  44. 


THE  VOYAGE   TO  AMERICA  57 

The  settlers,  it  is  true,  were  bitterly  aggrieved  that  the  merchants  did 
not  grant  them  also  for  themselves  one  third  of  their  time,  together  with 
the  houses  they  might  build  and  the  land  they  might  improve.  But  it  is 
clear  now  that  under  such  an  arrangement  the  merchants  would  have 
lost  their  whole  venture.     As  it  was,  they  made  nothing. 

ajJ/"  50.  Settlement  at  Plymouth.  —  Two  heart-breaking  years 
'  dragged  along  in  these  negotiations ;  and  the  season  of  1620 
was  far  wasted  when  (September  16)  the  Mayflower  at  last  set 
sail.  Most  of  the  Pilgrim  congregation  remained  at  Leyden, 
to  await  the  outcome  of  this  first  expedition,  and  only  one 
hundred  and  two  embarked  for  the  venture,  —  the  younger  and 
more  robust  of  the  company. 

They  had  meant  to  settle  "  in  the  northern  parts  of  Virginia," 
—  probably  somewhere  on  the  Delaware  coast.  But  the  little 
vessel  was  tossed  by  the  autumn  storms  until,  apparently,  the 
captain  lost  his  reckoning ;  and  they  first  made  land,  after  ten 
weeks,  on  the  bleak  shore  of  New  England,  already  in  the  clutch 
of  winter  (November  21).  The  tempestuous  season,  and  the 
dangerous  shoals  off  Cape  Cod,  made  it  unwise  to  continue  the 
voyage.  For  some  weeks  they  explored  the  coast  in  small 
boats,  and  finally  decided  to  make  their  home  at  a  place  which 
Smith's  map  had  already  christened  Plymouth ;  but  it  was  not 
till  the  fourth  day  of  January ■  that  they  "  beganne  to  erecte  the 
first  house,  for  commone  use,  to  receive  them  and  their  goods." 

"  Now,  summer  being  done,  all  things  stand  upon  them  with  a  wether- 
beaten  face  ;  and  the  whole  countrie,  full  of  woods  and  thickets,  repre- 
sented a  wild  and  savage  hiew.  ...  In  2  or  3  months  time,  halfe  their 
company  dyed  .  .  .  wanting  houses  and  other  comforts  ;  [and  of  the  rest] 
in  the  time  of  most  distres,  ther  was  but  6  or  7  sound  persons"  to  care 
for  all  the  sick  and  dying.  Of  the  eighteen  married  women  who  landed  in 
January,  May  found  living  only  four.  The  settlement  escaped  the 
tomahawk  that  first  terrible  winter  only  because  a  plague  (probably  the 
smallpox,  caught  from  some  trading  vessel)  had  destroyed  the  Indians  in 
the  neighborhood. 
But  when  Spring  came  and  the  Mayflower  sailed  for  England,  not  one 


1  These  dates  are  New  Style.    Cf.  §  29,  note.    Some  common  errors  regard- 
ing the  Pilgrim  "landing  "  are  criticized  by  Channing,  I,  320. 


58  PLYMOUTH   COLONY 

person  of  the  steadfast  colony  went  with  her.  In  Holland  they  had  care- 
fully pondered  the  dangers  that  might  assail  them,  and  had  highly  con- 
cluded "that  all  greate  and  honorable  actions  must  be  enterprised  and 
overcome  with  answerable  courages." 

51.    Mayflower  Compact   and  Early  Political   Organization. — 

The  charter  from  the  Virginia  Company  had  provided  that  the 
Pilgrims  should  be  governed  by  officers  of  their  own  choosing.1 

V 

ff*&J&**f  Ceforr^  ^  y  rT.t^^rtS-  ?«r/j  of  KWrnr*-.^*,* 

o-nz  of  xno^Act^  Coux^uxmf^^co-mf\>xt  oitrfefces  4ort  ct&tr-  w/»«r 
CttuVP SoSy  f>9ft/*'c% ;  f>'ry££<>4&r  o rcterxruf^prq/cruaA'o*  £  cA*4^ 
£?e«*«ttc*-.  offcnSs  cxfiitfccxttj   <*W  fy  i/trfux,  /Ce*rof  /*  £*<xc$t., 
Co^^H-iufv,,  a.-**: jfraLrke.  fjfivuA  jus¥  (^eauettt  /?ccw£S ,  ord* 'nances, 
JlcZs,  Conf?t-£u.A~o-*S^(^  (>ff<ctl  ,  fro*"  Jime'/a  A'*«e,  *sjA*.<t  £*  4Ao«f&r 
7*0$% -mee^c  &Co-nU.<rt\en£ -for J  trt-ntrxte Jf?i>*~  ofy   Co/o?i\l:  <2»>iTfti 

<t» /Cc t- of •»«  Xa-ue.  Aer-e-y^xfer  stt^ri"/e/  ovLtr  nccmts  <x£  ^«^  = 
C  o ct&rj   it    offTout^t  fzy^^Yytccir  off  ra\<f*e  ofoiAv*  Sou.e ragpid 

**<*  of  Sc*tf«nJljfcfl&-f0«*{kifi£  x)or~  fuTjLO 

The  Mayflower  Compact. 

From  Bradford's  Plymouth  Plantation. 

The  grant,  however,  had  no  force  in  the  place  to  which  they 
had  come,  and  the  colony  was  without  any  legal  govern- 
ment. In  consequence,  as  soon  as  it  was  proposed  to  remain 
there,   "some  of  the  strangers2  among  them  let  fall  mutinous 

lrIhe  exact  contents  of  the  charter  are  not  known;  but  Robinson's  fare- 
well letter  to  the  emigrants,  when  they  were  leaving  Europe,  refers  to  them 
as  having*'  become  a  body  politik  ...  to  have  only  for  your  gouvernora  them 
which  yourselves  shall  make  choyse  of."     See  Source  Book,  No.  45. 

2  Part  of  the  expedition  had  joined  it  in  England,  without  previous  connec- 
tion with  the  Leyden  congregation.    They  had  also  a  few  "  servants." 


THE   MAYFLOWER  COMPACT  59 

speeches,"  threatening  to  take  advantage  of  this  condition  and 
"to  use  their  own  libertie."  To  prevent  such  anarchy,  the 
Pilgrims,  before  landing,  drew  up  and  signed  the  Mayflower 
Compact,  believing  "  that  shuch  an  acte  by  them  done  .  .  . 
might  be  as  firme  as  any  patent." 

This  famous  agreement  has  sometimes  been  called,  carelessly, 
a  ivritten  constitution  of  an  independent  state.  This  it  is  not. 
It  does  not  hint  at  independence,  but  expresses  lavish  alle- 
giance to  the  English  crown;  and  it  is  not  a  constitution, 
because  it  contains  no  fundamental  laws  and  provides  no  frame 
of  government.  The  signers  merely  declare  their  intention 
(in  the  absence  of  established  authority)  to  maintain  order  by 
upholding  the  will  of  the  majority  of  their  own  number.1  The 
way  in  which  the  new  government  was  put  in  action  is  told  by 
Bradford  in  few  words :  — 

"  Then  [as  soon  as  the  compact  had  been  signed,  while  still  in  the 
Mayflower  cabin]  they  choose,  or  rather  confirmed,  Mr.  John  Carver  their 
Gouvernor  for  that  year.  [Carver  had  probably  been  made  governor  be- 
fore, under  authority  of  the  charter  ;  such  action  would  now  need  to  be 
"confirmed."']  And  after  they  had  provided  a  place  for  their  goods  .  .  . 
and  begunne  some  small  cottages,  as  time  would  admitte,  they  mette  and 
consulted  of  lawes  and  orders,  .  .  .  still  adding  therunto  as  cases  did 
require." 

52.  From  Industry  in  Common  to  Individual  Enterprise,  and 
from  Proprietary  Plantation  to  Corporate  Colony.  —  Expectations 
of  quick-won  wealth  in  America  still  dazzled  men's  minds.    In 

1  Source  Book,  No.  46.  The  Compact  does  not  determine  what  officers 
there  should  he,  nor  how  or  when  they  should  he  chosen,  nor  what  powers  they 
should  have.  It  resembles  the  preamble  to  a  constitution;  but,  more  truly 
regarded,  it  is  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  similar  agreements  in  America,  in 
regions  where  settlement  has  for  a  time  outrun  government,  —  first,  on  the 
coast  of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  then  in  the  woods  of  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  then  on  the  prairies  of  Illinois  and  Iowa,  and  very  recently  in 
Western  mining  camps.  This  first  use  of  the  device  was  probably  suggested 
to  the  Pilgrims  by  a  general  ordinance  of  the  London  Company,  shortly  before, 
which  authorized  just  such  action  by  any  body  of  colonists  who  might  find 
themselves  in  parts  of  Virginia  where  no  regular  government  had  as  yet  been 
provided.     See  Source  Book,  No.  '24. 


60  PLYMOUTH  COLONY 

1624  Captain  John  Smith  wrote  (while  speaking  of  this  same 
Plymouth  colony) :  — 

"I  promise  no  Mines  of  gold;  yet,  .  .  .  New  England  hath  yeelded 
already,  by  generall  computation,  £100,000  at  least  in  the  fisheries. 
Therefore,  honourable  countrymen,  let  not  the  meanness  of  the  word  fish 
distaste  you,  for  it  will  afford  as  good  gold  as  the  Mines  of  Guiana,  or 
Potassie,  with  less  hazard  and  charge,  and  more  certainty." 

Individual  traders,  too,  sometimes  made  sudden  fortunes  in  the 
fur  trade.  Accordingly,  the  Pilgrims  had  hoped  to  win  wealth 
rapidly,  and  had  expected  to  give  most  of  their  energies  to 
these  sources  of  magic  riches.  Pastor  Kobinson  wrote,  as  late 
as  June  14,  1620 :  — 

"Let  this  spetially  be  borne  in  minde,  that  the  greatest  parte  of  the 
collonie  is  like  to  be  imployed  constantly,  not  upon  dressing  ther  pertic- 
uler  lands  and  building  houses,  but  upon  fishing,  trading,  etc." 

Contact  with  actual  American  conditions  quickly  put  an 
end  to  the  delusion.  For  fishing  and  trading,  in  any  case,  the 
Pilgrims  were  at  first  wholly  unfitted;  and  to  establish  a 
permanent  colony,  containing  women  and  children,  called  for 
exclusive  attention  for  some  years  to  raising  food  and  improv- 
ing homes.     Plymouth  had  a  stern  struggle  for  bare  existence. 

The  "  supplies "  expected  from  the  London  partners  came, 
from  year  to  year,  in  too  meager  measure  to  care  even  for  the 
new  immigrants  who  appeared  along  with  them ;  and  the  crops 
of  European  grains  failed  season  after  season.  Fortunately, 
during  the  first  winter,  the  colonists  found  a  supply  of  Indian 
corn  for  seed,  and  a  friendly  native  to  teach  them  how  to 
cultivate  it;  and  the  old  cornfields  of  the  abandoned  Indian 
villages  saved  them  the  formidable  labor  of  clearing  away  the 
forest.  For  long,  however,  the  most  important  duty  of  the 
governor  was  to  direct  the  work  in  the  fields,  —  where  he  toiled, 
too,  with  his  own  hands,  along  with  all  the  men  and  larger 
boys. 

One  serious  hindrance  to  success,  even  among  these  "sober 
and  godly  men,"  was  the  system  of  industry  in  common. 


ECONOMIC  PROGRESS  61 

"  For  this  communitie  was  found  to  breed  much  confusion  and  dis- 
contente,  and  retard  much  imployment  that  would  have  been  to  their 
benefite  and  comforte.  For  the  yung-men,  that  were  most  able  and  fitte, 
.  .  .  did  repine  that  they  should  spend  their  time  and  strength  to  worke 
for  other  mens  wives  and  children.  .  .  .  The  aged  and  graver  men,  to  be 
ranked  and  equalised  in  labours  and  victuals,  cloaths,  etc.,  with  the 
younger  and  meaner  sorte,  thought  it  some  indignitie  and  disrespect  unto 
them.  And  for  mens  wives  to  be  commanded  to  doe  service  for  other 
men,  as  dressing  their  meate,  washing  their  cloaths,  etc.,  they  deemed  it 
a  kind  of  slaverie  ;  neither  could  many  husbands  well  brooke  it," 

Accordingly,  in  the  third  year,  famine  seeming  imminent, 
Governor  Bradford,  with  the  approval  of  the  chief  men  of  the 
colony,  set  aside  the  agreement  with  the  London  partners  in 
this  matter  and  assigned  to  each  family  a  parcel  of  land  ("  for 
the  time  only"1).  "This,"  says  Bradford,  "had  very  good 
success,"  — 

"for  it  made  all  hands  very  industrious,  so  as  much  more  corne  was 
planted  then  other  waise  would  have  been,  by  any  means  the  Governour 
or  any  other  could  use.  .  .  .  The  women  now  wente  willingly  into  the 
field,  and  tooke  their  litle-ons  with  them  to  set  corne,  which  before  would 
aledge  weakness  .  .  .  whom  to  have  compelled  would  have  bene  thought 
great  tiranie." 

For  other  reasons,  too,  the  danger  of  failure  passed  away. 
The  Pilgrims  were  learning  to  make  use  of  the  opportunities 
of  their  new  surroundings.  In  1627,  when  the  partnership 
was  to  have  expired,  little  had  been  done,  it  is  true,  toward 
repaying  the  London  merchants.  But  the  beginning  of  a 
promising  fur  trade  had  been  secured ;  and  Bradford,  with  a 
few  of  the  leading  men,  offered  to  assume  the  English  debt  if 
they  might  have  control  of  this  trade  to  raise  the  money.  This 
arrangement  was  accepted  by  all  parties.  It  took  Bradford 
fourteen  years  to  pay  the  merchants ;  but  meantime  they  at 
once  surrendered  their  claim  upon  the  colony.     Then  the  lands, 

1  This  arrangement  for  individual  labor  and  property  applied  only  to  the 
agricultural  produce.  Such  trade  and  fishery  as  were  carried  on  remained 
under  common  management;  and  even  these  parcels  of  land  did  not  at  this 
time  become  private  property.  Only  their  temporary  use  was  given.  The 
original  arrangement  was  not  communism.    Cf .  §  23,  note. 


62  PLYMOUTH   COLONY 

houses,  and  cattle  were  promptly  divided  among  the  settlers 
for  private  property  (1627). 

Legal  titles  were  still  wanting  (§  55)  ;  but,  as  matter  of  fact, 
in  economics,  as  in  politics,  Plymouth  had  now  grown  out  of  a 
proprietary  plantation  into  a  Corporate  Colony.  The  freemen 
formed  a  "  corporation  upon  the  place."  This  was  a  new  type 
in  American  colonization. 

53.  Political  Development.  — "Through  the  entire  life  of 
Plymouth  as  a  separate  colony,  the  government  continued 
simple  and  democratic.  The  political  development  may  be 
summed  up  under  four  heads  :  — 

a.  TJie  executive.  Governor  Carver  died  during  the  first 
spring.  The  next  governor,  William  Bradford,  was  kept  in 
office  by  annual  reelection  until  his  death,  in  1657,  except  for 
five  years  when  he  absolutely  refused  to  serve.  At  Bradford's 
first  election,  one  "Assistant"  was  chosen  to  aid  him.  Three 
years  later,  the  number  of  Assistants  was  raised  to  five,  and 
finally  to  seven.  Governor  and  Assistants  were  chosen  anew 
each  spring.  At  first  much  was  left  necessarily  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  governor ;  but  his  power  always  depended  upon 
popular  approval,  and  the  Assembly  could  check  him  at  any 
time.  After  1636,  his  functions  were  limited  carefully  by 
written  law. 

b.  TJie  Assembly.  This  was  the  essential  part  of  the  govern- 
ment. For  many  years  it  was,  in  form,  merely  a  town  meet- 
ing,—  a  mass  meeting  of  the  voters  of  one  small  village.  Even 
after  other  settlements  grew  up  in  the  colony,  the  Assembly 
continued  for  a  time  to  be  a  "folk  moot,"  held  in  the  oldest 
town.  But  this  could  not  last  among  Englishmen.  In  1636, 
by  order  of  the  Assembly,  the  three  chief  towns  sent  repre- 
sentatives to  sit  with  the  governor  and  Assistants  to  revise  and 
codify  the  laws.  The  same  device  was  used  the  next  year  in 
dividing  lands  and  assessing  taxes.  And  in  1639  it  was 
decreed  that  thereafter  the  Assembly  should  be  made  up  of 
such  representatives,  together  with  the  governor  and  Assistants. 
There  was  never  a  division  into  two  "  Houses." 


POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  63 

c.  Local  government.  As  other  villages  grew  up  about  the 
original  settlement  at  Plymouth  town,  their  constables  and 
other  necessary  officers  were  at  first  appointed  by  the  central 
Assembly.  But,  soon  after  the  central  government  became 
representative,  the  various  settlements  became  "towns"  in  a 
political  sense,  with  town  meetings,  and  elected  officers  of 
their  own,  after  a  method  introduced  just  before  in  Massachu- 
setts (§71). 

d.  Franchise.  The  first  voters  were  the  forty-one1  signers 
of  the  Mayflower  Compact.  They  made  up  the  original 
Assembly.  Thereafter,  the  Assembly  admitted  to  citizenship 
as  it  saw  fit.  For  a  time  it  gave  the  franchise  to  nearly  all  men 
who  came  to  the  colony  (the  easier  done,  because  few  came 
to  this  struggling  settlement  unless  they  were  in  sympathy 
with  its  aims).  Gradually,  however,  the  practice  became  less 
liberal.  In  1656  a  law  required  that  new  applicants  for  the 
right  to  vote  must  first  be  recommended  by  the  towns  in  which 
they  lived ;  and,  soon  after,  it  was  enacted  that  only  men  with 
a  specified  amount  of  property  could  become  voters.  Plymouth 
never  expressly  limited  the  franchise  to  church  members,  as 
Massachusetts  did  (§  6o),  but  she  reached  much  the  same  result, 
after  1671,  by  granting  the  privilege  of  voting  only  to  those 
who  could  present  "  satisfactory  "  proof  that  they  were  "  sober 
and  peaceable"  in  conduct  and  "orthodox  in  the  fundamentals  of 

)4.  Plymouth  in  History,  -(■  Political  democracy  was  not  prominent  in 
the  original  Ideals  of  the  Pilgrims.  It  was  rather  an  outgrowth  of  eco- 
nomic and  social  democracy  at  Plymouth.  There  were  no  materials  for 
anything  else a  but  democracy.     No  one  was  rich,  even  by  colonial  stand- 


1  Out  of  sixty-six  adult  males.  Of  the  twenty-five  who  did  not  sign  (over 
a  third  of  all),  some  were  regarded  as  represented  by  fathers  who  did  sign, 
and  eleven  were  servants  or  temporary  employees;  but  the  absence  of  other 
names  can  be  explained  only  on  the  ground  that  certain  men  did  not  wish  to 
sign  or  that  they  were  not  asked  to  do  so.  Cf.  a  careful  study  of  the  names 
in  Arber's  Story  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers,  378-380. 

2 Robinson,  in  his  farewell  letter  (§51,  note),  regards  it  a  misfortune  that 
the  Pilgrims  "are  not  furnished  with  any  persons  of  spetiall  eminencie  above 


64  PLYMOUTH  COLONY 

ards ;  and,  more  than  in  any  other  important  colony,  all  the  settlers 
came  from  the  "  plain  people."  Hardly  any  of  them  would  have  ranked 
as  "  gentlemen "  in  England.  Bradford,  there,  would  have  remained  a 
poor  yeoman,  and  John  Alden  a  cooper. 

But,  in  even  greater  degree,  democracy  in  politics  at  Plymouth  resulted 
from  democracy  in  the  church,  —  and  this  ecclesiastical  democracy  was 
essential  to  the  Pilgrim  ideal.  Plymouth  was,  first,  a  religious  society;  then, 
an  economic  enterprise;  and,  last,  and,  to  the  founders,  incidentally,  apolitical 
commonwealth. 

At  the  same  time,  however  incidental  in  origin,  political  democracy  at 
Plymouth  was  very  real,  and  had  far-reaching  results.  Not  least  among 
these  was  the  noble  code  of  laws  of  1636,  the  first  written  code  in 
America.  Along  with  much  concise  legislation  (most  of  it  far  ahead  of 
that  of  Europe  in  that  day),  it  contained  an  admirable  statement  of 
democratic  theory  and  a  notable  "  bill  of  rights  "j  a  claim  for  the  rights 
of  "  freeborn  Englishmen  "  ;  an  order  that  no  law  or  tax  should  apply  to 
the  colony  except  such  as  should  have  been  made  by  the  Assembly  ;  provi- 
sion for  annual  election  of  all  officers ;  guarantee  that  no  punishment 
should  be  imposed  by  the  discretion  of  magistrates,  but  only  by  virtue  of 
some  express  law  ;  provision  for  jury  trial  in  all  criminal  cases,  with  right 
of  the  accused  to  challenge  jurors,  both  for  cause,  and,  up  to  twenty, 
without  reason  assigned.     See  Source  Book,  No.  50. 

The  colony  grew  slowly,  counting  less  than  three  hundred 
people  in  1630,1  when  the  great  Puritan  migration  to  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  began.  The  larger  Puritan  colonies,  then  estab- 
lished, had  a  more  complex  development,  and  taught  more 
important  lessons  in  politics 2  and  economics.  "Plymouth  had 
little   direct   influence,  in   either   of   these  ways,  upon  later 

the  rest,  to  be  chosen  into  offices  of  governmente."  Had  such  persons  been 
present,  public  feeling,  even  in  Plymouth,  would  probably  have  made  them  an 
aristocracy  of  office.  Democracy  at  that  time  rarely  went  farther  than  to 
suggest  that  common  men  ought  to  have  a  voice  in  selecting  their  rulers. 
The  actual  ruling  was  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  those  selected  from  the  noble, 
or  at  least  from  the  gentry,  class.  A  feeling  much  akin  to  this  dominated 
most  of  American  society  well  into  the  nineteenth  century,  until  the  victory 
of  "  Jacksonian  Democracy." 

1  Exercise.  —  Find  authority  for  these  figures  in  one  of  the  Plymouth 
documents  in  the  Source  Book. 

2  Even  representative  institutions  were  developed  in  the  later  Massachusetts 
colony  earlier  than  at  Plymouth  (§64). 


SIGNIFICANCE   IN  HISTORY  65 

American  history.  It  did  have  a  large  part  in  directing  the 
later  Puritan  colonies  toward  church  independency ;  but  its 
supreme  service,  after  all,  lay  in  pointing  the  way  for  that  later 
and  greater  migration.  This  the  Pilgrims  did ;  and  with  right 
their  friends  wrote  them  later,  when  the  little  colony  was  al- 
ready overshadowed  by  its  neighbors,  —  "  Let  it  not  be  grievous 
to  you  that  you  have  been  but  instruments  to  break  the  ice  for 
others  :    the  honor  shall  be  yours  till  the  world's  end." 

55.  Charters.  —  It  has  been  noted  that  the  Pilgrims  found  themselves 
at  first  without  government.  Moreover,  during  the  first  months,  they 
were  merely  squatters  on  the  soil,  without  title.  The  London  partners 
remedied  these  conditions  by  securing  a  charter  for  the  colony  from  the 
proprietary  Plymouth  Council  (§45).  This  charter  (June,  1621)  was 
made  out  to  John  Peirce  (one  of  the  merchant  partners)  as  trustee  for 
the  partnership  ;  but  its  effect  was  to  grant  to  the  partnership  full  title 
in  the  lands  that  might  be  settled,  and  to  authorize  the  settlers  to  govern 
themselves  under  laws  and  officers  of  their  own  making.1 

This  patent  gave  the  sanction  of  English  law  to  the  government  that 
had  been  set  up  under  the  Mayflower  Compact.  That  sanction  was  of 
brief  duration.  The  next  year,  by  trickery  and  the  payment  of  £50, 
Peirce  got  the  New  England  Council  to  replace  the  first  charter  by  another 
grant,  which  made  him  proprietor,  not  trustee.  **  He  mente,"  says  Brad- 
ford, that  the  colonists  should  "  hold  of  him  as  his  tenants  and  sue  to 
his  courtes  as  cheefe  Lord."  Two  expeditions  were  prepared  by  Peirce 
to  strengthen  his  hold  upon  Plymouth  ;  but  each  time  his  plans  were 
ruined  by  shipwreck,  and  finally  he  resigned  his  claims,  in  return  for  £500 
paid  him  by  the  London  merchants.  Then,  in  1630,  after  its  partnership 
with  the  Londoners  had  been  dissolved,  the  colony  obtained  a  third  char- 
ter, this  time  in  Bradford's  name,2  but  otherwise  like  that  of  1621. 

Four  years  later,  however,  the  New  England  Council  ceased  to  exist, 
and  all  grants  of  jurisdiction  from  it  became  invalid  (cf .  §  33) ,  —  such 
powers  reverting  to  the  king.  The  government  of  the  colony  remained 
thereafter  on  the  basis  of  the  Mayflower  Compact,  and  no  sanction  was 
ever  secured  for  it  by  a  royal  charter.  The  English  government,  however, 
did  not  interfere  with  the  Plymouth  democracy  (except  for  the  Andros 

1  Source  Book,  No.  47.  This  was  the  first  charter  issued  by  the  New 
England  Council,  —  which  was  glad  enough  to  welcome  an  unexpected  colony 
into  the  territory  it  had  just  acquired.  As  to  the  legality  of  the  transfer  of 
jurisdiction,  cf.  Source  Book,  No.  47,  comment  at  close. 

2  Source  Book,  No.  49,  a. 


66  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

period,  §  100)  until  1691,  when  King  William  annexed  the  colony  to  the 
Province  of  Massachusetts. 

However,  when  the  Bradford  charter  lost  its  claim  to  political  value, 
its  land  grants  still  held  good  (cf.  §33j;  and,  in  1611,  with  solemn  cere- 
mony, Bradford  surrendered  his  rights  to  the  whole  body  of  colonists.1 
It  was  now  possible  for  the  colony  to  legalize  the  assignments  of  land  it 
had  made  in  1627  and  at  later  times. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  documents  in  the  Source  Book  bearing 
upon  Plymouth  should  be  studied  with  care.  (Cf.  suggestions  on  page 
43  of  this  volume.)  Bradford's  Plymouth  Plantation  will  be  enjoyed  by 
many  high  school  students  as  far  as  to  page  200.  (The  latter  part  of  the 
work  is  taken  up  largely  with  details  of  financial  arrangements  with  the 
London  partners,  and  is  difficult  reading.)  Excellent  secondary  accounts 
are  given  by  Tyler  {England  in  America,  149-182)  and  by  Channing 
(I,  293-321).  The  most  careful  constitutional  study  is  found  in  Osgood's 
Colonies,  I,  98-102.  Perhaps  the  most  dramatic  portraiture  of  the  lead- 
ers is  found  in  Eggleston's  Beginners  of  a  Nation.  Jane  G.  Austin's 
stories,  especially  Standish  of  Standish,  are  worthy  of  mention. 

Exercise.  —  1 .  Trace  the  title  of  a  piece  of  property  purchased  in  1642 
from  John  Alden  and  never  held  previously  by  any  other  private  owner. 
2.  Distinguish  between  Plymouth  town  and  Plymouth  colony.  3.  When 
does  it  become  needful  to  keep  this  distinction  in  mind  ?  4.  Examine 
the  Source  Book  on  Plymouth  for  information  not  given  in  this  volume, 
and  report.     5.    Explain  two  meanings  of  "  New  England." 


III.    MASSACHUSETTS  BAY:    AN  ARISTOCRATIC  THEOCRACY 
A.     Foundation  in  Commercial  Enterprise 

56.    The  Dorchester  Company's  Colony  at  Cape'  Ann,  1623.  — 

The  great  Puritan  colony  of  Massachusetts  was  fortunate 
enough  to  find,  foundations  laid  for  it  by  commercial  enter- 
prise. A  partnership  of  merchants  in  the  west  of  England, 
mainly  about  Dorchester,  had  been  engaged  in  the  New 
England  fisheries  for  several  years.     In  1623,  in  order  to  carry 

1  See  Source  Book,  No.  49,  b.  The  surrender  had  been  deferred  until 
Bradford  and  his  seven  associates  paid  off  the  huge  debt  they  had  assumed 
for  the  colony,  in  order,  no  doubt,  to  have  a  whip  over  newcomers  who  might 
otherwise  interfere  with  the  fur  trade  which  was  to  pay  that  debt. 


COMMERCIAL  BEGINNINGS  67 

on  the  business  to  better  advantage,  they  decided  to  leave 
thirty  or  forty  employees  the  year  round  in  a  station  at  Cape 
Ann.  By  happy  accident,  an  admirable  overseer  for  the  plan- 
tation was  found  in  Roger  Conant,1  but  in  England  the  manage- 
ment was  overwhelmed  by  misfortunes  and  blunders,  and, 
after  three  years  of  heavy  losses,  the  partnership  broke  up. 
However,  when  a  ship  arrived  to  take  the  colonists  home, 
Conant  and  four  others  decided  to  stay,  and  so  kept  the  enter- 
prise alive. 

57.  The  Massachusetts  Company's  Colony  at  Salem,  1628. — 
Conant  removed  from  the  exposed  situation  on  Cape  Ann  to  a 
more  convenient  location  near  by.  He  had  been  induced  to 
remain  in  America  by  promises  from  John  White,  one  of  the 
Dorchester  partners.2  White  managed  at  once  to  send  over 
some  cattle  and  supplies ;  and  the  next  year  (1627-1628)  he 
succeeded  in  organizing  a  strong  proprietary  Company  to  take 
up  the  work  of  trade  and  colonization.  The  new  partnership 
contained  some  of  the  former  Dorchester  "adventurers"  and 
many  additional  members  from  London,  and  it  came  to  be 

1  Conant  drifted  to  Cape  Ann  from  Plymouth,  which  he  left  (as  he  said 
years  later)  out  of  dislike  for  the  extreme  principles  of  the  Separatists.  How- 
he  came  to  Plymouth  we  do  not  know.  Possibly  he  was  one  of  the  gentlemen 
in  the  Gorges  expedition  (§  45). 

2  White's  Brief  Relation  is  the  chief  authority  for  the  Cape  Ann  colony  and 
for  part  of  the  Salem  movement.  Extracts  are  given  in  the  Source  Book,  No. 
58.  White  gives  the  following  reasons  for  founding  a  station  in  America. 
Vessels  had  to  be  double-manned  for  the  voyage  across  the  Atlantic  and  back, 
in  order  to  accomplish  anything  at  the  fisheries  during  the  brief  season.  This 
overcrowding  was  costly  and  deadly.  Employees,  left  the  year  round  in 
America,  would  be  ready  to  join  the  fleet  in  fishing  when  it  arrived  each 
spring,  and  to  supply  it  with  fresh  and  wholesome  food.  At  other  times  they 
might  engage  in  the  enticing  fur  trade,  with  its  possibilities  of  enormous 
gains.  In  such  a  village,  too,  there  would  of  course  be  a  church,  and  its 
influences  might  reach  out  to  the  rough  fisher-folk  of  the  fleets,  who,  other- 
wise, during  their  eight-month  voyages,  knew  little  of  civilization. 

White  was  a  Puritan  clergyman,  and  was  actuated  mainly  by  "  compassion 
toward  the  fishermen,"  rather  than  by  the  commercial  motives  of  his  asso- 
ciates. But  this  religious  purpose  was  of  a  home  missionary  nature,  —  such 
as  in  our  country  to-day  helps  extend  churches  into  frontier  districts.  It  was 
not,  in  any  sectarian  sense,  a  Puritan  motive.    White  never  came  to  America. 


f 


68  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

known  as  the  Company  for  Massachusetts  Bay,1  or  the  Massa- 
chusetts Company.  March  29,  1628,  it  bought  from  the  New- 
England  Council  the  territory  between  the  Charles  River  and 
the  Merrimac  (extending  west  to  the  Pacific),2  and,  during  the 
summer,  it  sent  out  sixty  settlers  under  John  Endicott?  On 
the  arrival  of  this  expedition,  there  was  some  friction  at 
first  between  Endicott  and  Conant's  "  old  planters " ;  but 
finally  Endicott  was  recognized  peaceably  as  the  manager 
of  the  colony  —  to  which  he  then  gave  the  name  Salem 
(Peace). 

The  following  spring  the  Massachusetts  Company  obtained 
a  charter  from  King  Charles  (March  14,  1629).  This  "  First 
Charter  of  Massachusetts  Bay"  was  at  the  time  merely  a 
grant  to  a  commercial  company  in  England,  like  the 
charters  to  the  London  Company.  To  settlers  in  America 
it  gave  no  privileges,  except  for  the  usual  guarantee  of 
the  "  rights  of  Englishmen."  Its  purpose  was  threefold. 
It  incorporated  the  Company;  it  confirmed  title  to  the  land 
purchased  from  the  New  England  Council ;  and  it  gave  the 
Company  jurisdiction   over   settlers,   similar   to   the   authority 

1  Composed  of  merchants  from  different  parts  of  England,  the  Company- 
could  not  be  described  fitly  by  a  name  pertaining  to  England,  and  so  it  took 
its  name  from  the  district  in  which  it  was  to  operate  in  America  —  as  the 
London  Company  had  sometimes  been  called  the  Virginia  Company.  This  did 
not  mean  that  the  Company  expected  to  go  itself  to  America.  Several  of  the 
new  members  had  been  among  the  London  partners  of  the  Pilgrim  settlement ; 
and,  as  a  whole,  the  Company  was  Puritan  (as  was  almost  the  entire  mer- 
chant class  in  England) ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  design,  as  yet,  to 
found  a  Puritan  colony.  For  over  a  year  more,  the  movement  remained 
commercial  in  character. 

2  The  Company  is  said  to  have  paid  £2000  for  this  grant.  The  territory 
included  the  tract  granted  earlier  to  Robert  Gorges  (§  45).  Such  confusion 
was  common  in  territorial  grants  in  this  period ;  but  this  unhappy  complica- 
tion gave  the  Puritan  colony  an  able  enemy  in  Ferdinando  Gorges,  a  noble 
and  worthy  gentleman  (§  61) . 

8  Endicott  was  a  well-known  Puritan  of  the  gentry  class.  A  contemporary 
called  him  "  a  fit  instrument  to  begin  this  Wildernesse-worke,  of  courage 
bold,  undanted,  yet  sociable,  and  of  a  chearfull  spirit,  loveing  and  austere" 
(Edward  Johnson's  Wonderworking  Providence  of  Zion's  Saviour  in  New 
England).    The  modern  student  sees  mainly  his  austere  side. 


COMMERCIAL  BEGINNINGS  69 

possessed  by  other  colonizing  companies  in  England,  but  more 
restricted} 

The  Company  now  became  a  very  busy  body,  with  frequent 
meetings.  It  appointed  Endicott  governor  at  Salem,2  and  sent 
him  voluminous  instructions  upon  many  matters.  It  collected 
supplies  of  all  sorts  diligently,  and  sought  for  desirable  emi- 
grants of  various  trades  ;  and,  in  May,  1629,  it  sent  out  its 
second  expedition,  of  some  two  hundred  settlers,  led  by  Francis 
Higginson,  a  Puritan  minister.3 

Two  other  clergymen  were  in  this  company ;  and  a  few  months  later 
a  distinctively  Puritan  church  was  organized  at  Salem.  Indeed,  by  high- 
handed action,  Endicott  sent  back  to  England  certain  prominent  settlers 
who  set  up  a  separate  worship  more  in  accord  with  the  English  Church. 

All  this  does  not  prove  that  the  Company  meant  as  yet  to  establish  a 
Puritan  colony.  It  sympathized  strongly  with  the  Puritan  movement ; 
but  it  rebuked  Endicott's  action  severely,  and  the  majority  of  the  emi- 
grants it  had  sent  out  so  far  were  certainly  not  Puritans.  Most  of  them, 
indeed,  were  of  the  "  servant "  class,  and  they  proved  rather  a  worthless 
lot  (§  60).  The  chief  men  of  the  colony  were  Puritans,  because,  as  things 
had  come  to  be  in  England,  it  was  easier  just  then  for  an  emigration  to 
draw  fit  leaders  from  the  Puritans  than  from  any  other  class. 

So  far,  then,  the  history  of  this  proprietary  Company  and  its  planta- 
tion resembles  closely  that  of  other  colonizing  enterprises  of  the  day. 
But,  late  in  the  summer  of  1629,  a  new  movement  appears,  with  mighty 
consequences.  Puritanism  is  seen  to  be  in  danger  in  England.  To  the  Puri- 
tan stockholders  of  the  Company,  all  commercial  motives  fade  beside  a 
supreme  desire  to  provide  a  safe  refuge  for  their  principles  in  church  and 

1  For  this  famous  document,  and  for  some  suggestions  as  to  its  study  (in- 
cluding notes  upon  its  limitations),  see  Source  Book,  Nos.  53-55.  The  student 
may  justify  the  statement  in  the  text  regarding  the  three  main  purposes  of 
the  charter,  by  comparing  it  with  the  abstract  ("Docket")  presented  for  the 
royal  approval  (Source  Book,  No.  54).  Unlike  some  charters,  this  one  did 
not  authorize  capital  punishment,  martial  law,  control  over  emigration,  or 
coinage  of  money,  — though  the  colony  was  to  assume  all  these  powers. 

2  Source  Book,  No.  63.  Until  the  Company  secured  the  charter,  it  had  no 
authority  to  appoint  officers  in  America.  Like  Conant  before  him,  Endicott 
had  been  merely  an  agent,  without  legal  control  over  settlers,  except  such 
as  he  had  over  those  who  were  "  servants"  of  the  Company. 

3  See  Source  Book,  No.  56,  for  an  "  agreement  "  with  Higginson. 


70  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

state.  The  organization  of  the  Company  is  turned  over  to  a  few  mem- 
bers (for  the  most  part  new  members  and  men  of  good  position  in  English 
society),  who  pledge  their  lives  and  fortunes  to  a  daring  and  lofty  ex- 
periment. These  men  transfer  themselves  (and  the  corporation  with 
them)  to  America.  Company  and  colony  merge;  and  Massachusetts  becomes 
a  corporate  colony  and  a  Puritan  commonwealth  (§§  58  ft.). 

B.     A  Puritan  Corporate  Coloxy 

"  God  hath  sifted  a  nation,  that  he  might  send  choice  grain  into 
this  wilderness.'''' — William  Stoughton,  "Election  Sermon,''''  in  1690. 

58.    Danger  to  English  Puritanism :  the  Cambridge  Agreement.  — 

For  years,  despite  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  Puritans,  the  Eng- 
lish Church  had  been  carried  farther  and  farther  away  from  their 
ideals.  Bishop  Laud,  the  tireless  leader  of  the  High-church 
movement,  was  ardently  supported  by  King  Charles.  All  high 
ecclesiastical  offices  had  been  turned  over  to  his  adherents; 
and  his  "High  Commission"  Court,  with  dungeon  and  pillory 
at  its  back,  was  now  ready  to  silence  the  great  body  of  Puritan 
pastors  or  to  drive  them  from  their  parishes. 

In  this  hard  case  the  Puritans  had  rested  their  hope  upon 
parliament.  That  body  was  controlled  by  them  ;  and,  year  by 
year,  it  worked  for  reform  both  in  government  and  in  the 
church.  With  the  meeting  of  the  third  parliament  of  Charles 
(1628),  reform  seemed  on  the  verge  of  success.  In  its  first 
session,  that  parliament  extorted  the  King's  assent  to  the  great 
"Petition  of  Eight";  and,  in  the  winter  of  1629,  it  turned 
with  fresh  energy  to  the  regulation  of  the  Church.  Then 
the  King  struck  a  despotic  blow.  He  dissolved  parliament 
(March  2,  1629),  sent  its  leaders  to  the  Tower,  and  entered 
upon  a  system  of  personal  tyranny.  For  eleven  years  no  par- 
liament was  to  meet  in  England.  Religious  reform  and  polit- 
ical liberty  had  gone  down  in  common  ruin,  the  end  of  which 
no  man  then  could  see. 

The  continent  of  Europe  offered  no  hope.  Every  form  of 
Protestantism  there  seemed  doomed.  Wallenstein's  victorious 
troopers  were  turning  the  Protestant  provinces  of  Germany  into 


A  PURITAN  CORPORATE   COLONY  71 

wilderness  homes  for  wild  beasts ;  and  in  France  the  great 
Richelieu  had  just  crushed  the  Huguenots.1 

This  gloomy  outlook  is  expressed  in  a  letter  written  by  John  Winthrop, 
in  London,  to  his  wife  at  their  manor  house  (June  1629)  :  "I  am  verily 
persuaded  God  will  bringe  some  heavye  Affliction  upon  this  Land,  and 
that  speedylye."  The  times,  he  continues,  grow  worse  and  worse  ;  all 
the  other  churches  (outside  England)  have  been  smitten  and  made  to  drink 
the  cup  of  tribulation  even  unto  death.  England,  seeing  all  this,  had  not 
turned  from  its  evil  ways.  "Therefore  He  is  turninge  the  Cuppe  towards 
us  also,  and  because  we  are  the  last,  our  portion  must  be  to  drink  the 
verye  dreggs." 

Such  were  the  conditions  that  fronted  the  English  Puritans 
in  the  summer  of  1629.  Accordingly,  the  more  dauntless  of 
them  turned  their  eyes  to  the  New  World. 

There  they  saw  a  marvelous  opportunity.  At  Plymouth 
was  the  colony  of  the  Separatists,  not  large,  but  safely  past 
the  stage  of  experiment ;  and  close  by  was  the  prosperous 
beginning  of  a  commercial  colony  controlled  by  a  Puritan  com- 
pany in  England  and  managed  directly  by  well-known  Puritans 
like  Endicott  and  Higginson.  How  natural  to  try  to  convert  this 
Massachusetts  into  a  refuge  for  Low-church  Puritanism,  such 
as  Plymouth  already  was  for  "  Puritans  of  the  Separation." 

But  the  men  of  this  new  movement  had  no  idea  of  becoming 
part  of  a  mere  plantation  governed  by  a  distant  proprietary 
company,  however  friendly.  They  themselves  were  of  the 
ruling  aristocracy  of  England,  — justices  of  their  counties,  and, 
on  occasion,  members  of  Parliament.  And  so  a  number  of 
them  gathered,  by  long  horseback  journeys,  and  signed  the 
famous  "  Cambridge  Agreement "  (August  25),  promising  one 
another  solemnly  that  they  would  embark  for  Massachusetts  ^ 
with  their  families  and  fortunes,  if  they  could  find  a  way  to 
take  with  them  the  charter  and  the  "whole  government "  ^ s  »  V 

1  The  course  of  the  Puritan  struggle  in  England  is  told  compactly  in  the 
Modern  History,  in  about  ten  pages  (§§236-243).  Brief  explanation  of  the 
events  referred  to  in  Germany  and  France  can  be  found  in  the  same  text, 
§§  229-231.  jfls 

2  Source  Book,  Nos.  58,  b,  and  59.  I/^a 


72  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 


t^W 


Transfer  of  Company  and  Charter  to  America.  —  A  proposal 
to  transfer  the  government  of  the  Company  to  America  had 
been  made  a  month  before  at  the  July  meeting  of  the  Company 
in  London.  The  plan  was  novel  to  most  of  the  members;  but 
in  September,  after  repeated  debates,  it  was  approved.1  The 
new  men  of  the  Cambridge  Agreement  now  bought  stock; 
many  old  stockholders  drew  out;  the  old  officers  resigned 
(since  they  did  not  wish  to  emigrate)  ;  and  John  Winthrop, 
the  most  prominent  of  the  new  men,  was  elected  "  governor  " 2 
(October,  1629).  The  next  spring,  Winthrop  led  to  Massachu- 
setts a  great  Puritan  migration,  —  the  most  remarkable  colo- 
ng  expedition  that  the  world  had  ever  seen.2 

The  Great  Migration,  1630-1640.  —  In  the  spring  of  1629, 
Endicott  had  a  hundred  settlers  at  Salem.  In  June,  when  Hig- 
ginson  arrived  with  two  hundred  more  (§  57),  another  planta- 
tion was  begun  at  Charlestown.  The  next  winter  slew  nearly  a 
third  of  the  colonists ;  and  in  June  of  1630  Winthrop  found  the 
survivors  starving  and  demoralized.  Four  fifths  of  them  were 
servants  of  the  Company ;  but  they  had  accomplished  nothing, 
and  Winthrop  thought  it  cheaper  to  free  them  than  to  feed 
them.3 

The  migration  now  had  become  a  Puritan  movement.  In 
this  same  summer,  seventeen  ships  brought  two  thousand 
settlers  to  Massachusetts,  and  six   new  towns 4  were  started 


1  For  a  detailed  discussion  on  the  transfer  of  the  charter,  cf.  Source  Book, 
ttr=>  No.  53,  and  comments  at  close. 

y,  2  Previously  the  governor  had  been  Matthew  Cradock,  and  his  term  would 

not  have  expired  regularly  until  the  next  May.    This  position  corresponded  to 

that  of  "  treasurer  "  in  the  London  Company.   It  must  not  be  confounded  with 

'    the  subordinate  "  governorship  "  held  by  Endicott,  any  more  than  Sandys' 

^         r     position  as  executive  head  of  the  London  Company  in  1619  is  to  be  confounded 

~1        JU^with  the  position  of  Yeardley  in  Virginia.    Winthrop  was  the  second  governor 

1     ,     t    of  the  Company.    When  he  came  to  America,  he  superseded  Endicott  (for 

\  i    whose  separate  office  there  was  no  further  need),  and  became  second  gov- 

J^CZ?!    ernor  of  the  colony  also.    The  two  offices  merged. 

8  Find  authority  for  this  in  the  Source  Book. 

4  Boston,  Dorchester,  Watertown,  Roxbury,  and  minor  settlements  at  Lynn 
and  Newtown  (afterward  Cambridge) . 


& 


THE  GREAT  MIGRATION  73 


along  the  Bay.  But  conditions  proved  sadly  different  from 
expectations.  Two  hundred  immigrants  returned  home  in  the 
ships  that  brought  them,  or  sought  better  prospects  in  other 
colonies,  and  two  hundred  more  died  before  December;  while 
only  the  early  arrival  of  supplies  (in  February)  saved  the 
colony  from  utter  destruction.1  The  deserters  spread  such  dis- 
couragement in  England  that  for  the  next  two  years  emigra- 
tion practically  ceased.  In  1633,  however,  it  began  again. 
Soon  the  ship-money2  troubles  gave  it  new  impetus,  and  it 
went  on,  at  the  average  volume  of  three  thousand  people  a 
year,  until  the  Long  Parliament  was  summoned. 

Thus  the  eleven  years  of  "No  Parliament"  saw  twenty-five 
thousand  selected  Englishmeyi  transported  to  New  Engand  at  the 
tremendous  cost,  for  those  times,  of  four  million  of  dollars. 
In  1640  the  movement  stopped  short.3  Says  Winthrop,  "  The 
parliament  in  England  setting  upon  a  general  reformation 
both  in  church  and  state,  .  .  .  this  caused  all  men  to  stay  in 
England  in  expectation  of  a  New  World"  there.  Indeed,  the 
migration  turned  the  other  way ;  and  many  of  the  boldest  and 
best  New  England  Puritans  hurried  back  to  the  old  home,  now 
that  there  was  a  chance  to  fight  for  Puritan  principles  there.4 


1  Immediately  on  his  arrival,  Winthrop,  in  fear  of  famine  before  summer, 
had  sent  back  a  ship  for  supplies.  When  it  returned  he  had  just  given  his 
last  measure  of  meal  to  a  destitute  neighbor,  if  we  may  believe  Cotton  Mather's 
anecdote. 

2  For  this  and  other  references  to  English  history  in  this  period,  see  Modern 
Histonj,  §§  241-244. 

3  The  sudden  stop  in  immigration  caused  great  industrial  depression.  Until 
that  time  the  colony  had  been  unable  to  raise  sufficient  supplies  for  its  use. 
Newcomers  brought  money  with  them,  and  gladly  paid  for  cattle  and  food 
the  price  in  England  plus  the  cost  of  transportation.  In  an  instant  this  was 
changed.  The  colony  had  more  of  such  supplies  than  it  could  use,  and  high 
freights  made  export  impossible.  Both  Bradford  and  Winthrop  lament  the 
falling  in  prices,  —  for  a  cow  from  £20  to  £5,  etc.,  —  without  very  clear  ideas 
as  to  its  cause.  The  phenomenon  has  been  repeated  many  times  on  our 
moving  frontiers. 

4  Winthrop's  third  son  and  one  of  his  nephews  went  back  and  rose  to  the 
rank  of  general  under  Cromwell,  while  the  Reverend  Hugh  Peter,  —  rather  a 
troublesome  busybody  in  the  colony,  —  became  Cromwell's  chaplain.     Such 


74  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

New  England  was  to  have  no  further  immigration  of  con- 
sequence until  after  the  Revolution.  All  the  more  clearly, 
this  coming  of  the  Puritans  during  the  ten  years  of  hopeless- 
ness in  England  is  one  of  the  fruitful  facts  in  history.  For 
mere  numbers,  the  exodus  has  no  parallel  until  the  migration 
to  Pennsylvania,  almost  at  the  close  of  the  century,  and  the 
twenty-five  thousand  are  the  ancestors  of  about  a  sixth  of  our 
population  to-day.  But  the  mighty  significance  of  the  move- 
ment lay  in  the  character  of  the  emigrants.  To  that  we  owe 
much  more  than  a  sixth  of  our  higher  life  in  America.  Said  an 
old  Puritan  preacher,  with  high  insight,  "  God  hath  sifted  a 
nation,  that  he  might  send  choice  grain  into  this  ivilderness." 
This  sifting  took  place  just  when  England  had  been  lifted  to 
her  highest  pitch  of  moral  grandeur;  and  that  chosen  seed  has 
given  to  America  not  only  "  the  New  England  conscience,"  but 
a  finer  thing,  —  a  share  of  the  Puritan's  faith  in  ideals. 

This  high  character  did  not  hold  for  all  the  twenty-five  thousand  im- 
migrants of  the  ten  years.  They  were  not  all  Puritans  ;  and  the  Puritans 
were  not  all  saints.  Some  little  communities,  like  Marblehead,1  were 
made  up  wholly  of  rude  fishermen  with  little  interest  in  the  Puritan 
movement ;  and  the  Puritan  settlements  themselves  contained  many 
"servants"  —  about  the  same  proportion,  probably,  as  were  usual  in 
English  society.2  These  were  sometimes  a  bad  lot,  with  the  vices  of  an 
irresponsible,  untrained,  hopeless  class.3 

facts  help  us  to  understand  that  the  larger  figures  on  the  small  New  England 
stage,  like  Winthrop  and  his  gallant  son,  John  Winthrop,  Jr.,  were  fit  compan- 
ions for  the  greatest  actors  on  the  great  European  stage  in  that  great  day. 

1  Cotton  Mather  tells  how  a  preacher  from  another  town,  visiting  Marble- 
head  and  praising  their  devotion  to  principle,  was  interrupted  by  a  rough 
voice,  —  "  You  think  you  are  talking  to  the  people  of  the  Bay :  we  came  here 
to  catch  fish." 

2  Winthrop  alone  had  some  twenty  male  servants,  some  of  them  married, 
in  his  "  household." 

8  On  the  voyage,  cheats  and  drunkards  from  this  class  had  to  receive  severe 
punishment.  After  reaching  America,  the  better  ones  were  sometimes  de- 
moralized by  despair.  They  saw  vastly  greater  opportunity  for  free  labor 
than  they  had  ever  dreamed;  but  they  had  ignorantly  bound  themselves  to 
service  through  the  best  years  of  their  lives.  Brooding  upon  this  led  some  to 
crime  or  suicide.     (Find  authority  for  these  statements  in  the  Source  Book.) 


ENGLAND   THREATENS  TO  INTERFERE  75 

Nor  should  we  think  of  the  most  exalted  Puritans  as  moved  by  ideal 
motives  only.  They,  too,  expected  to  better  their  wordly  condition. 
Their  title  to  heroism  lies  in  the  fact  that,  when  this  dream  faded,  the 
more  steadfast  spirits  never  wavered,  proving  that  after  all  it  was  not 
material  considerations,  but  higher  aims,  that  moved  them  most. 

Even  John  Winthrop  had  been  impelled  to  migration  largely  by  the 
decay  of  his  fortune  in  England,  which  was  such  (as  he  explained,  in  the 
third  person,  to  his  friends1)  that.,"  he  cannot  live  in  the  same  place  and 
calling  [as  before]  and  so,  if  he  should  refuse  this  opportunity,  that  talent 
which  God  hath  bestowed  upon  him  for  publick  service  were  like  to  be 
buried."      Many  of  the  1630  migration  had  been  deluded  by  "the  too 
large  commendations"  of  New  England  which  Higginson  had  sent  back?, 
in  the  preceding  summer,  just  after  his  arrival.     Dudley,  a  disappointed/ 
but  stout-hearted  companion  of  Winthrop,  in  his  Letter  to  the  Countess 
of  Lincoln  (Source  Book)  speaks  with  charity  of  "falling  short  of  ouf^, 
expectations,  to  our  great  prejudice  [loss],  by  means  of  letters  sent  us  ' 
hence  into  England,  wherein  honest  men,  out  of  a  desire  to  draw  others/ 
to  them,  wrote  somewhat  hyperbollically  of  many  things  here."     So,  too, 
after  the  first  hard  months,  the  disillusioned  Winthrop  wrote  to  his  wife  - 
in  still  nobler  strain,  "I  do  hope  our  days  of  affliction  will  soon  have  an 
end  .  .  .    Yet  we  may  not  look  for  great  things  here  .    .  .   [But]  we 
here  enjoy  God  and  Jesus  Christ.     I  thank  God,  I  like  so  well  to  be 
here  as  I  do  not  repent  my  coming;    and  if  I   were   to   come   again, 
I  would  not  have  ^tered  my  course  though   I  had  forseen  all  these 
afflictions. 

mger  of  interference  from  England.  —  For  a  time,  ex- 
treme peril  threatened  from  the  home  government.  In  the 
first  year  after  Win throp's  arrival  in  America,  two  agents  of 
Gorges  in  Massachusetts  were  arrested,  severely  handled,  and 
shipped  back  to  England.  In  1632,  Gorges  brought  the  matter 
before  the  royal  Council,  claiming  that  the  Massachusetts 
charter  had  been  secured  fraudulently  and  that  the  govern- 
ment there  in  any  case  had  exceeded  its  authority.  This  first 
attack  was  resisted  successfully  by  the  friends  of  the  planta- 
tion in  England.  But  in  1634  the  king  appointed  a  standing 
committee  of  twelve  members  of  his  Council  "to  regulate  all 
plantations."     This  first  establishmeyit  of  a  distinct  organ  ofgov- 

1  Considerations  for  J.  W.  (Source  Book,  No.  59,  6.  See  also,  No.  59,  a.) 
Cf .  §  18,  for  statement  of  like  motives  in  bringing  leaders  to  Virginia. 


r,    afflictions. 


76  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

ernment  to  deal  with  the  colonies  was  an  exceedingly  ivise  step; 
but,  unhappily  for  Massachusetts,  at  the  head  of  these  "  Lords 
Commissioners  of  Plantations  "  was  Archbishop  Laud.  Gorges, 
sure  of  a  powerful  sympathizer,  now  renewed  his  attack,  with 
more  effect.  The  committee  ordered  Cradock,  governor  of  the 
original  Massachusetts  Company,  to  produce  the  charter  and 
justify  the  acts  of  the  colonial  government.  Wlien  it  was  dis- 
covered that  the  charter  was  in  America,  a  series  of  peremptory 
demands  were  sent  to  the  authorities  there  for  its  return,  and 
legal  processes  were  begun  in  the  courts  to  secure  its  over- 
throw. Meantime,  in  1635,  the  New  England  Council  surren- 
dered its  charter,  and  Charles  appointed  Ferdinando  Gorges 
"  governor  general " l  over  all  New  England.  Gorges  began  to 
build  a  ship  and  to  get  together  troops,  and  things  looked 
dark  for  the  Puritan  experiment. 

The  leaders  in  the  colony  did  not  weaken.  After  consult- 
ing with  the  ministers,  it  was  agreed,  "  that,  if  a  general 
governor  were  sent,  we  ought  not  to  accept  him,  but  defend 
our  lawful  possessions  (if  we  are  able) ;  otherwise,  to  avoid  or 
protract."  At  its  next  meeting  the  General  Court  voted  a  tax 
of  £600  (many  times  larger  than  had  before  been  known  in  the 
colony),  and  began  a  series  of  fortifications,  not  on  the  frontier 
against  the  Indians,  but  on  the  coast  to  resist  an  English  ship. 
Bullets  were  made  legal  tender  in  place  of  small  coin ;  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  "to  manage  any  war  that  may  be- 
fall," with  power  to  establish  martial  law.2  No  one  thought 
of  sending  back  the  charter.  Quaint  excuses  were  sent  in 
plenty;  and,  when  these  wore  thin,  the  orders  were  quietly 
ignored,  and,  at  last,  openly  defied. 

1  This  was  the  office  that  had  heen  given  by  the  Plymouth  Council  to  the 
younger  Gorges  some  years  before,  when  there  were  hardly  any  settlements 
to  govern.  Gorges'  commission  would  have  left  the  Massachusetts  General 
Court ;  but  it  would  have  superimposed  another  authority  over  it. 

2  The  committee,  renewed  from  time  to  time,  was  authorized  to  imprison 
suspects  without  trial  and  to  inflict  a  death  penalty  upon  traitors  after  such 
trial  as  it  saw  fit.  (Source  Book,  No.  72.)  This  was  plainly  in  excess  of  the 
powers  conferred  by  the  charter. 


ARISTOCRACTIC  USURPATIONS  77 

This  policy  of  "  protracting  "  won.  Gorges'  ship  was  ruined  by  an 
accident  in  launching,  and  he  could  not  get  money  to  build  another  or  to 
keep  his  troops  together.  The  King,  economizing  rigidly,  in  the  midst 
of  the  ship-money  troubles,  would  give  commissions,  but  no  gold.  The 
English  courts  did  finally  declare  the  charter  void  (1638);  but  the  ship 
that  brought  word  of  this  brought  news  also  of  the  rising  of  the  Scots, 
and  the  colony  "thought  it  safe"  bluntly  to  refuse  obedience  to  the 
"  strict  order  "  for  the  surrender  of  the  document,  even  hinting  rebellion 
(Source  Book,  No.  76).  In  England,  matters  moved  rapidly  to  the  Civil 
War  and  the  Commonwealth.  Massachusetts  was  left  untroubled  to 
work  out  her  experiment. 

Winthrop  wrote,  toward  the  close  of  1638  :  "The  troubles  which  arose 
in  Scotland  about  the  book  of  common  prayer,  which  the  king  would  have 
forced  upon  the  Scottish  churches,  did  so  take  up  the  king  and  council 
that  they  had  neither  heart  nor  leisure  to  look  after  New  England. "  And, 
years  later,  Cotton  exclaimed  exultingly  (regarding  the  wars  in  England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland)  :  "  God  then  rocqued  three  nations  with  shakeing 
dispensations,  that  He  might  provide  some  little  peace  for  His  people  in 
this  wildernesse."  After  the  Restoration,  the  legal  authorities  in  Eng- 
land decided  that,  since  the  charter  had  not  actually  been  surrendered,  the 
process  against  it  was  incomplete  and  ineffective. 

C.     Political  Development  from  Oligarchy  to  Repre- 
sentative Aristocracy,  1630-1634 


(In  the  Source  Book,  Kos.  69-79,  will  be  found  much  illustrative 
material  besides  that  specifically  referred  to  in  the  following  paragraphs.) 

62.  Oligarchic  Usurpation.  —  The  Puritan  fathers  did  not 
find  it  easy  to  stretch  the  charter  of  a  merchant  company 
into  the  constitution  of  a  commonwealth,  —  especially  as  there 
were  aristocratic  and  democratic  factions  in  that  commonwealth 
pulling  different  ways.  According  to  the  charter,  all  impor- 
tant matters  of  government  were  to  be  settled  by  the  stock- 
holders ("freemen")  in  "General  Courts."  But  only  some 
twelve  freemen  of  the  corporation  had  come  to  America  in 
1630.  These  were  all  of  the  gentry  class,  and,  before  leaving 
England,  had  all  been  made  magistrates  (governor,  deputy  gov- 
ernor, and  "Assistants").     Independently  of  such  office,  and 


78  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

merely  as  freemen,  the  twelve  had  sole  authority  to  rule  the  tivo 
thousand  settlers  and  make  laws  for  them,  in  four  stated  "Gen- 
eral Courts "  each  year.  The  little  oligarchy  began  at  once  to 
use  this  tremendous  power.1  A  popular  movement  also  showed 
itself  at  the  very  beginning ;  but  for  a  time  it  was  half-hearted 
and  ill-directed,  and  the  first  two  years  belonged  to  the  oligarchy. 

The  first  General  Court  was  held  in  October,  1630.  By  death 
and  removal,  the  twelve  possessors  of  power  had  shrunk  to 
eight;  and  these  eight  gentlemen  found  themselves  confronted 
by  a  gathering  of  one  hundred  and  nine  sturdy  settlers  demand- 
ing to  be  admitted  freemen.  Since  the  Company  had  become  a 
political  corporation,  this  was  simply  a  demand  for  citizenship. 
Apparently,  it  represented  concerted  action  by  nearly  all  the 
heads  of  families  above  the  station  of  unskilled  laborers.  To  re- 
fuse the  request  was  to  risk  the  wholesale  removal  of  dissatisfied 
colonists:  to  grant  it  was,  possibly,  to  endanger  the  peculiar 
Puritan  commonwealth  at  ichich  the  leaders  aimed,  and,  cer- 
tainly, to  introduce  more  democracy  than  they  believed  safe. 

In  this  dilemma,  the  shrewd  leaders  kept  the  substance 
and  gave  the  shadow.  They  postponed  action  on  the  applica- 
tion until  the  next  spring.  Meantime  they  passed  two  laws  — 
absolutely  in  violation  of  the  charter  —  first  (October,  1630), 
that  the  Assistants  should  make  laws  and  choose  the  governor,  and 
second  (May,  1631),  that  the  Assistants  should  hold  office  dur- 
ing good  behavior  instead  of  all  going  out  of  office  at  the  end 
of  a  year.  Then  they  admitted  116  new  freemen,  having  left 
them  no  power  except  that  of  electing  new  Assistants  "when 
these  are  to  be  chosen."     A  handful  of  oligarchs,  under  color  of 

1  Indeed,  the  Assistants  from  the  first  went  beyond  the  charter  provisions. 
At  the  first  court  of  Assistants  in  America  (Source  Book,  No.  69,)  they  created 
the  office  of  justice  of  the  peace,  defined  its  powers,  and  appointed  six  of  them- 
selves to  that  position.  According  to  the  charter,  such  action  as  this  he- 
longed,  not  to  the  minor  "Assistants'  courts,"  hut  only  to  the  "Great  and 
General  Courts."  The  August  meeting  of  Assistants  also  fixed  the  wages  of 
laborers  (forbidding  a  carpenter  or  mason  to  take  more  than  two  shillings  a 
day) ;  but  this  was  a  power  that  then  belonged  to  magistrates  in  England,  and 
it  was  regarded  probably  as  an  administrative,  not  a  legislative,  function. 


ARISTOCRATIC   USURPATIONS  79 

law,  had  usurped  the  power  of  electing  the  governor,  making 
laws,  and  extending  their  own  office  indefinitely.1 

The  applicants,  in  their  anxiety  to  get  into  the  body  politic, 
agreed  readily  to  these  arrangements.  Indeed,  they  were 
ignorant  as  to  what  their  rights  were.  The  charter  was  locked 
in  Winthrop's  chest,  and  only  the  magistrates  had  read  it  or 
heard  it.  For  a  year  more,  that  little  body  of  seven  or  eight 
continued  to  tax  and  legislate  and  rule,  admitting  a  few  new 
freemen  now  and  then,  as  it  saw  fit. 

The  chief  founders  of  New  England  had  a  very  real  dread  of  democ- 
racy.   John  Cotton,  the  greatest  of  the  clerical  leaders,  wrote  :  — 

"Democracy  I  do  not  conceive  that  God  did  ever  ordain  as  a  fit  gov- 
ernment for  either  church  or  commonwealth.  If  the  people  be  governors, 
who  shall  be  governed  ?  As  for  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  they  are  both 
clearly  approved  and  directed  in  the  Scriptures,  —  yet  so  as  setteth  up 
theocracy  as  the  best  form  of  government  in  the  commonwealth  as  in  the 
church." 

And  the  great  Winthrop  always  refers  to  democracy  with  aversion.  He 
asserts  that  it  has  "no  warrant  in  Scripture,"  and  that  "among  nations 
it  has  always  been  accounted  the  meanest  and  worst  of  all  forms  of 
government."  At  best,  Winthrop  and  his  friends  believed  in  what  they 
called  "a  mixt  aristocracy,"  —  a  government  in  which  the  people  (above 
the  condition  of  day  laborers)  should  choose  their  rulers,  —  provided 
they  chose  from  still  more  select  classes  ;  but  in  which  the  rulers  so 
chosen  were  to  possess  practically  absolute  power,  owning  their  offices 
somewhat  as  an  ordinary  man  owned  his  farm.2  With  this  idea,  too, 
these  leaders  mingled  a  certain  "divine  right"  idea  for  the  elected 
magistrate,  much  as  the  Stuart  kings  did  for  hereditary  magistrates. 

Calvin,  the  master  of  Puritan  political  thought,  teaches  that  to  resist 
even  a  bad  magistrate  is  "to  resist  God"  {Source  Book,  No.  61). 
His  language  is  often  followed  closely  by  Winthrop.  In  1639,  after  the 
people  in  Massachusetts  had  secured  a  little  power,  the  magistrates  tricked 

1  Cf.  Fiske's  curious  error  as  to  all  this  in  Beginnings  of  New  England,  105. 
Besides  a  wrong  view  point,  he  mistakes  a  fact,  and  assumes  that  the  new 
freemen  were  admitted  in  1630. 

2  Cf.  Cotton's  sermon,  §  64. 


80  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

them  out  of  most  of  it  for  a  while  by  a  law  decreasing  the  number  of 
deputies,  so  that  they  should  not  outvote  the  aristocratic  magistrates  in 
the  court.  Some  of  the  people  petitioned  modestly  for  the  repeal  of  this 
law.  Winthrop  looked  upon  the  petition  much  as  King  James  did  upon 
the  famous  Millenary  Petition  (as  "tending  to  sedition").  "The  law- 
fulness" of  such  a  petition,  said  Winthrop,  "may  well  be  questioned: 
for  when  the  people  have  chosen  men  to  be  their  rulers,  now  to  combine 
together  ...  in  a  public  petition  to  have  an  order  repealed  .  .  .  savors 
of  resisting  an  ordinance  of  God.  For  the  people,  having  deputed 
others,  have  no  power  to  make  or  alter  laws  themselves,  but  are  to  be 
subject.'''1 1 

.A* 

63.  The  Watertown  Protest:  the  Freemen  resume  Part  of 
their  Rights.  —  The  first  protest  came,  after  good  English 
precedent,  upon  a  matter  of  taxation.  In  February,  1632,  the 
Assistants  voted  a  tax  for  fortifications.  Watertown  was 
called  upon  to  pay  eight  pounds.  Now,  Watertown  had  been 
settled  by  a  church  almost  of  the  Separatist  type,  and  it  in- 
clined, therefore,  to  democracy  in  politics  also.  Moreover,  the 
magistrates  had  interfered  with  the  minister  and  church  there, 
and  this  may  have  piqued  the  inhabitants.  At  all  events  the 
minister  now  secured  a  resolution  from  the  people  "  that  it  was 
not  safe  to  pay  moneys  after  that  sort,  for  fear  of  bringing  them- 
selves and  posterity  into  bondage."  Governor  WTinthrop  at  once 
summoned  the  men  of  WTatertown  before  him  at  Boston  as 
culprits,  rebuked  them  for  their  "  error,"  and  so  overawed  them 


1  The  quotations  from  Winthrop  come  from  his  History  of  New  Eng- 
land. (This  invaluable  "Journal"  has  been  printed  only  with  modernized 
spelling.  When  a  Winthrop  quotation  is  given  with  antique  spelling,  it  comes 
from  his  Letters).  Cf.  Source  Book,  Nos.  67,  70,  73,  and  especially  77;  also 
§  64,  note,  for  illustrations  of  this  undemocratic  feeling. 

Winthrop  regards  the  combining  of  citizens  for  a  political  purpose  as  a 
"conspiracy,"  just  as  English  and  American  law  long  continued  to  regard 
any  combining  of  workmen  to  negotiate  for  higher  wages.  This  shows,  in 
part,  why  the  men  of  the  American  Revolution  put  so  much  stress  upon  the 
"right  of  petition"  in  all  their  Bills  of  Rights,  commonplace  as  that  right 
seems  to  us.  It  shows,  too,  how  far  Winthrop's  theory  of  government  was 
from  Lincoln's  idea  of  a  government  "  of  the  people  and  by  the  people  "  ;  but 
it  savors  strongly  of  some  recent  talk  against  modern  democratic  innovation. 


THE  WATERTOWN  PROTEST  81 

that  they  "  made  a  retraction  and  submission  .  .  .  and  so  their 
offence  was  pardoned."  Probably,  however,  on  the  walk  back 
to  Watertown  through  the  winter  night,  the  "  error  "  revived. 
Certainly,  during  the  next  months,  there  was  much  secret 
democratic  plotting  and  sending  to  and  fro  among  the  towns 
of  which  we  have  no  record ;  for  when  the  (general  Court  met, 
in  May,  the  freemen  calmly  took  back  into  their  own  hands  the 
annual  election  of  governor  and  of  Assistants,  and  then  sanc- 
tioned the  Watertown  protest  by  decreeing  that  each  town 
should  choose  two  representatives  to  act  with  the  magistrates  in 
matters  of  taxation.1 

This  was  not  yet  representative  government.  The  town  deputies 
acted  in  taxation  only.  The  magistrates  still  kept  their  usurped  power  to 
make  laws.  And  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  magistrates  too  were 
representatives,  being  elected  each  year.  No  one  was  so  democratic  as 
to  dream  of  making  a  magistrate  out  of  a  common  man  under  the  rank 
of  "gentleman"  ;  and  gentlemen  of  prominence  were  not  yet  numerous. 
Therefore,  though  the  charter  ordered  that  eighteen  Assistants  should  be 
chosen  each  year,  the  number  was  kept  down  to  seven  or  eight  at  this 
period,  and  for  many  years  did  not  rise  above  twelve.  The  same  men 
were  reelected  year  after  year,  almost  inevitably,  unless  there  was  par- 
ticular grievance  in  some  special  case;  and  new  men  of  station  were  elected 
even  before  they  arrived  in  the  colony,  —  so  completely  was  the  office  of 
Assistant  a  property  and  a  duty  going  with  a  certain  social  position.2 

For  a  time,  too,  the  method  of  nomination  made  most  elections  in  the 

1  Our  information  comes  almost  wholly  from  the  brief  "  Records  "  and  from 
Winthrop's  "  Journal."  The  democrats  never  wrote  their  story,  and  many 
important  steps  have  no  history.  A  week  before  the  General  Court,  Win- 
throp  warned  the  Assistants  "  that  he  had  heard  the  people  intended  ...  to 
desire  [vote]  that  the  Assistants  might  be  chosen  anew  every  year,  and  that 
the  governor  might  be  chosen  by  the  whole  court,  and  not  by  the  Assistants 
only."  "  Upon  this,"  adds  Winthrop's  "  Journal,"  "Mr.  Ludlow  [an  Assistant] 
grew  into  a  passion  and  said  that  then  we  should  have  no  government,  but 
there  would  be  an  interim  ivherein  every  man  might  do  what  he  pleased." 

2  Thus  Winthrop  tells  us  of  the  elections  at  this  court  of  1632:  "The  old 
governor,  John  Winthrop,  was  chosen ;  accordingly,  all  the  rest  [of  the  magis- 
trates] as  before ;  and  Mr.  Humphrey  and  Mr.  Coddington,  also,  because  they 
were  daily  expected."  These  were  two  English  gentlemen,  who,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  did  not  come  until  one  and  two  years  later. 


82  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

General  Court  only  a  polite  form.  The  people  did  not  nominate  two  or 
three  candidates  and  then  choose  between  them.  The  Secretary  nominated 
the  officer  whose  term  had  just  expired.  On  this  nomination  the  freemen 
had  to  vote.  Unless  they  first  deposed  an  old  officer,  they  had  no  chance  to 
try  to  elect  a  new  one.  Moreover,  for  three  years  more  the  vote  was  "  by 
erection  of  hands,"  not  by  secret  ballot. 

'  64.  The  Revolution  of  1634.  —  Two  years  later  came  the  sec- 
ond step,  which  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  call  a  peaceful  revolu- 
tion. The  impulse  to  this  great  movement  was  economic  and 
social.  It  began  as  a  protest  against  "  special  privilege."  The 
people  felt  that  the  magistrates  were  legislating  in  the  in- 
terest of  their  own  class.  A  law  authorizing  the  killing  of 
swine  found  in  grain  fields  was  especially  resented,  and  the 
attempts  to  fix  wages  may  have  contributed  to  a  like  feeling.1 

The  common  freemen  determined  to  find  out  how  far  they 
had  power  to  stop  this  class  legislation.  In  April,  1634,  the 
usual  notice  was  sent  out,  calling  the  freemen  to  the  General 
Court  in  May.  Suddenly,  on  a  given  day,  two  men  from  each 
of  the  eight  towns 2  came  together  in  Boston,  to  agree  upon  a 
program.3  This  "convention"  asked  to  see  the  charter,  and 
at  once  called  Winthrop's  attention  to  the  fact  that,  according 
to  that  document,  the  making  of  laws  belonged  to  the  whole 
body  of  freemen  (now  some  two  hundred).  Winthrop  told 
them  loftily  that  "for  the  present  they  were  not  furnished 
with  a  sufficient  number  of  men  qualified  for  such  a  business, " 
but  that  they  mighty  once  a  year  choose  a  committee  to  review 
the  laws  of  the  magistrates  and  suggest  changes. 

This  lordly  condescension  of  the  good  governor  was  not 
enough.  The  "  plotting  "  went  on ;  and,  when  the  General 
Court  met  (May  14),  three  deputies  appeared  from  each  of  the 

1  Winthrop  was  as  piously  and  honestly  dismayed  that  workmen  should 
ask  higher  wages  as  that  they  should  aspire  to  a  voice  in  affairs  of  state. 
Find  authority  for  these  statements  in  the  Source  Book. 

2  §  60  and  note. 

8  By  what  steps  were  these  deputies  arranged  for  ?  No  record  answers 
this  question ;  but  plainly  there  must  have  been  much  democratic  planning 
and  journeying  to  secure  it. 


THE   REVOLUTION  OF   1634  83 

eight  towns.  This  was  revolutionary.  The  twenty-four  depu- 
ties outnumbered  the  Assistants  and  made  the  Court  really  a 
representative  body.  Other  freemen  were  present  also  to  vote, 
but  not  to  discuss.  Neither  charter  nor  laws  knew  anything 
of  representatives.  But  the  freemen  saw  very  properly  that 
the  whole  body  could  not  engage  in  lawmaking  on  equal  term? 
with  the  trained  and  compact  body  of  Assistants,  and  so  they 
fell  back  upon  the  English  device  of  representation. 

The  aristocrats  evidently  felt  their  power  in  danger.  At  the 
opening  of  the  court,  John  Cotton  preached  a  sermon,  — 

"and  delivered  this  doctrine,  that  a  magistrate  ought  not  to  be  turned 
into  the  condition  of  a  private  man,  without  just  cause,  and  to  be  publicly 
convict,  no  more  than  the  magistrate  may  not  turn  a  private  man  out  of 
his  freehold,  etc.,  without  like  public  trial."  l 

The  answer  of  the  freemen  was  to  demand  a  ballot;2  to  drop 
Winthrop  from  the  office  he  had  held  for  four  years ; 3  and  to 

1  At  another  time  Winthrop  tells,  with  evident  approval,  how  "it  was 
showed  from  the  word  of  God  that  the  magistracy  ought  to  be  for  life." 

2  We  should  not  know  this  important  fact  except  for  a  note,  "chosen  by 
papers,"  in  the  margin  of  Winthrop's  manuscript,  opposite  the  name  of  the 
new  governor.  "  Papers  "  were  used,  undoubtedly,  as  (^democratic  device, — 
to  secure  a  free  expression  of  opinion,  where  so  influential  a  man  as  Winthrop 
might  otherwise  overawe  voters.  This  was  the  first  use  of  the  ballot  in 
America  for  political  purposes ;  but  papers  had  been  used  before  in  a  church 
election  at  Salem,  and  the  ballot  was  familiar  to  English  boroughs  and  busi- 
ness corporations,  though  unknown  in  parliamentary  elections.  (See  Rules 
of  the  London  Company,  in  Source  Book,  No.  23.)  Now  that  one  of  these 
corporations  had  moved  to  America  and  become  a  political  corporation,  for 
it  to  use  the  ballot,  as  soon  as  differences  of  opinion  arose,  was  inevitable. 

8  As  opportunity  offered,  the  aristocratic  doctrine  of  Cotton  was  further  re- 
buked by  the  election  of  a  new  governor  for  each  of  the  two  following  years 
also.  Then,  in  a  period  of  great  trouble,  the  trusted  Winthrop  was  chosen 
again,  and  kept  in  office  by  annual  elections,  except  for  five  years,  until  his 
death  in  1649. 

Even  while  out  of  the  governor's  chair,  Winthrop  was  chosen  Assistant 
each  year;  but,  in  1635,  Mr.  Ludlow  (see  note  above)  was  dropped  out  of 
office  altogether.  Winthrop  says  the  people  did  this  "  partly  to  show  their 
absolute  power";  but  he  also  shows  a  sufficient  and  proper  reason.  The 
deputies  met  before  the  election  of  the  governor,  and  agreed  to  support  a 
democratic  gentleman,  — who  accordingly  was  chosen.  The  Assistants  did  this 
sort  of  thing  constantly  on  their  side.     Indeed,  they  adopted  a  written  rule 


84  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

impose  fines  upon  some  of  the  magistrates  for  abuse  of  power. 
The  Court  then  proceeded  to  make  the  revolution  permanent. 
It  decreed  that  the  four  General  Courts  each  year  should  con- 
sist (as  this  one  did)  of  deputies  elected  by  the  several  towns,  and 
of  the  governor  and  Assistants.  Only  such  Courts  thereafter 
were  to  admit  freemen,  lay  taxes,  or  make  laws.  The  Court 
in  May  each  year  was  to  be  also  a  Court  of  Elections  for  the 
choice  of  governor  and  Assistants.  For  this  election,  at  the 
opening  of  the  Court,  all  freemen  might  attend ;  but  when 
the  choice  had  been  made,  all  were  to  withdraw  except  the 
regular  deputies  and  magistrates. 

The  transfer  of  the  charter  to  America  and  the  liberal  admission  of 
freemen  had  transformed  the  charter  of  a  merchant  company  into  the 
constitution  of  a  commonwealth;  and  that  commonwealth  had  developed 
from  a  narrow  oligarchy  into  a  representative  aristocracy.  The  early  usurpa- 
tions of  the  Assistants  were  now  all  corrected.  The  freemen  had  recov- 
ered all  the  powers  they  could  claim  under  the  charter,  and  had  found 
a  way,  outside  the  charter  (the  device  of  representation),  to  exercise 
their  powers  effectively. 

The  revolutionary  Court  of  1634  took  other  democratic  action.  It 
ordered  jury  trial  in  all  important  criminal  cases  (§80),  and  it  admitted 
eighty-one  new  freemen,  increasing  the  voting  body  by  a  third.1  But 
Massachusetts  was  still  far  short  of  a  democracy  (§  65  ff.). 


65.  The  Franchise.  —  The  most  obvious  limitation  upon 
democracy  lay  in  the  franchise.  The  "  freemen  "  were  only  a 
fraction  of  the  free  men.  The  General  Court  of  1631,  which 
admitted  the  first  new  freemen,  decreed  that  thereafter  only 
church  members  should  be  admitted.     This  did  not  mean  that 

to  consult  together  in  private,  so  that  their  united  voice  in  public  "might 
bear  as  the  voice  of  God."  But  Ludlow  flew  into  a  passion  when  the  deputies 
caucused.  He  declared  that  for  them  to  do  such  a  thing  was  equivalent  to 
conspiracy  and  that  it  rendered  the  whole  election  void.  The  freemen  re- 
buked him  by  voting  him  out  of  office.  The  ballot  was  used  in  this  election, 
also. 

1  On  the  day  the  Court  met,  the  Assistants  had  gone  as  far  as  they  were 
willing  to  go,  admitting  twenty -three  freemen.  The  representative  Court  at 
once  admitted  almost  four  times  as  many  more. 


THE  FRANCHISE  85 

all  church  members  could  vote.     The  people  comprised  five 
distinct  classes :  — 

a.  Gentlemen,  who  had  a  right  to  the  title  Master  (Mr.)  ; 

b.  Skilled  artisans  and  freeholders,  the  backbone  of  the  colony, 
usually  addressed  as  "Goodman  Brown"  or  "Goodman  Jones"; 

c.  Unskilled  laborers,  for  whose  names  no  handle  was  needed, 
and  for  whom  indeed  the  surname  was  not  often  used ; 

d.  Servants,  who  eventually  passed  into  class  c  or  b; 

e.  Slaves,  of  whom  there  were  soon  a  small  number,  both 
negro  and  Indian. 

Men  of  the  lowest  three  classes  were  often  admitted  to  the 
church,  but  never  to  political  citizenship  ;  while  any  man  of  the 
first  two  classes,  who  was  also  a  member  of  an  approved  church 
(§  83)  and  who  applied  to  the  General  Court  for  citizenship, 
was  pretty  sure  to  be  welcomed.  Thus,  law  prescribed  a  reli- 
gious qualification  for  voting,  and  the  feeling  of  the  people 
added,  in  practice,  a  social  and  property  qualification.  Only 
about  a  fourth  of  the  adidt  males  had  the  suffrage  in  Massachusetts 
at  any  time  in  the  seventeenth  century.  (Certain  other  limita- 
tions upon  democracy  are  noticed  in  §§  66-70.) 

Gentlemen  were  set  off  from  the  lower  classes  by  a  social  line  hardly- 
less  distinct  than  that  which  in  England  separated  gentlemen  from  lords. 
About  one  family  out  of  fourteen  in  early  Massachusetts  belonged  to  the 
gentry.  That  ordinary  ' '  people ' '  should  show  subordination  to  these  social 
superiors  was  almost  as  essential  as  to  obey  express  law.  For  one  distinct 
legal  privilege,  the  gentleman  was  exempt  from  corporal  punishment. 
Thus,  in  1631,  Mr.  Josias  Plaistowe  was  convicted  of  stealing  corn  from 
the  Indians.  His  servants  —  who  had  assisted,  under  orders  —  were 
condemned  to  be  flogged;  but  the  court  merely  fined  Plaistowe  and 
ordered  that  thenceforward  he  "  should  be  called  by  the  name  of  Josias, 
and  not  Mr.,  as  formerlie.1'  This  was  severe  punishment,  equivalent  to 
degrading  an  officer  to  the  ranks.  For  another  offense,  Josias  would  no 
doubt  be  whipped,  like  an  ordinary  man.  This  exemption  of  the  aristoc- 
racy was  embodied  in  written  law  in  1641.1  Ten  years  later  the  court 
declared  its  "detestation"  of  the  wearing  of  gold  lace  or  silk  by  men 
or  women  "of  mean  condition,1'  admitting  that  such  apparell  was  fitting 
for  gentlemen  (Source  Book,  No.  75,  6).     The  student  will  do  well  to 

1  Body  of  Liberties,  43;  in  No.  78  of  Source  Book. 


* 


86  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

compare  the  class  distinctions  described  for  England  by  William  Harrison 
in  1578  and  those  portrayed  in  Massachusetts  in  1635  in  the  "Answer" 
to  Lord  Say  and  Lord  Brooke  {Source  Book,  Nos.  1  and  75). 

D.   Evolution  of  a  Two-chambered  Legislature, 
1634-1644 

{The  class  may  use  JVos.  68,  75,  77,  79-80,  of  the  Source  Book  at  this 
point ;  and  look  up  authority  there  for  the  statements  of  the  text.) 

66.  Lines  of  Division  in  the  One-chambered  General  Court.  — 
For  ten  years,  deputies  and  Assistants  continued  to  sit  together 
in  the  General  Court,  as  one  body.  But,  from  the  first  meet- 
ing, a  distinct  line  of  separation  appeared  between  these  two 
orders.  The  deputies  were  usually  democratic  in  sympathy, 
and  often  came  from  a  rank  lower  than  that  of  "  gentlemen." 
They  held  office  for  only  a  few  days  in  the  year,  and  their 
work  was  mainly  legislative.  The  Assistants  continued  to  be 
a  highly  aristocratic  class,  and,  on  the  whole,  the  same  men 
served  year  after  year.  The  causes  for  the  aristocratic  charac- 
ter of  the  Assistants  were  partly  in  the  political  machinery, 
partly  in  the  nature  of  their  office,  and  partly  in  popular  feeling. 

a.  Method  of  nomination  and  election.  The  voters  for  Assist- 
ants, it  is  true,  were  the  same  men  who  chose  deputies  ;  but 
the  franchise  was  exercised  in  different  ways  for  the  two  offices. 
The  deputies  were  chosen  two  or  three  in  a  town  by  their  own 
townsmen.  It  was  easy,  therefore,  to  elect  a  "  common  "  free- 
man, known  only  within  his  town.  The  Assistants,  on  the 
contrary,  were  chosen  at  large,  and  in  one  general  Court  of 
Election.  Only  men  of  wealth  or  position  such  as  to  make  them 
known  throughout  the  wrhole  colony  could  get  consideration.1 

1  This  truth  has  an  important  bearing  upon  politics  to-day.  Small  electoral 
districts  tend  to  give  democratic  results;  larger  ones,  aristocratic  results. 
In  most  of  our  States,  the  State  senate  is  elected  just  as  the  lower  House  of 
the  legislature  is,  except  that  the  electoral  districts  for  the  senate  are  larger ; 
but  the  senates  are  made  up  of  richer  and  better-known  men.  So,  in  a  large 
city,  if  aldermen  are  elected  by  districts,  one  or  two  for  each  ward,  it  has 
hitherto  proved  easier  for  a  workingman  to  be  elected  now  and  then,  than  if  the 
election  is  at  large,  —  all  the  aldermen  for  the  city  elected  on  one  ticket. 


A  TWO-CHAMBERED   LEGISLATURE  87 

For  a  time  this  tendency  was  intensified  by  the  bad  system  of  nomina- 
tions (§  63,  close).  In  1635,  to  be  sure,  the  ballot  was  introduced  in 
the  election  of  Assistants  (as  it  had  been  a  year  earlier  in  the  election  of 
governor) ;  but  the  nomination  continued  as  before.  The  secretary  named 
an  Assistant  already  in  office.  The  people  brought  in  "papers."  Those 
in  favor  of  electing  the  nominee  marked  their  papers  with  a  scroll  (they 
were  not  asked  to  write  the  name  because  so  many  freemen  could  not 
write)  ;  those  opposed  deposited  blank  ballots.  If  there  were  more 
marked  papers  than  blanks,  the  candidate  was  declared  elected.  If  he 
were  defeated,  another  nomination  might  be  made,  to  be  accepted  or 
rejected  by  itself  in  like  manner.  There  was  no  opportunity  to  choose 
between  two  men,  and  ordinarily  the  man  in  office  would  be  continued 
there.1 

b.  The  court  of  Assistants  was  largely  a  judicial  court;  and 
it  was  necessary  that  the  Assistant  should  know  something  of 
law.  Moreover,  the  Assistants  had  to  meet  frequently,  and 
the  office  was  unpaid.  Only  "  gentlemen  "  were  fitted  for  the 
work,  or  could  spare  time  for  it. 

c.  The  Assistants  were  "ruling  magistrates,"  with  consider- 
able executive  and  administrative  "power.  The  most  ardent 
democrats  believed  that  such  officers  ought  to  come  from  the  gentry 
class,  not  from  the  lower  ranks  of  society. 

67.  Many  matters  of  dispute  arose  between  the  two  orders.  Some 
were  trivial,  except  for  the  class  feeling  involved.  The  deputies  wished 
to  fine  heavily  an  unpopular  "  gentleman  "  for  charging  exorbitant  prices 
for  merchandise  ;  the  Assistants  insisted  upon  reducing  or  remitting  the 
fine.  Then  the  Assistants  gave  judgment  for  slander  against  a  poor 
woman  who  had  accused  the  same  "gentleman"  of  stealing  her  pig 
(which  had  strayed  into  this  gentleman's  yard  and  after  some  time  had 
been  killed  by  him);  the  deputies  sided  with  the  woman.  But  more  im- 
portant differences  were  not  lacking.  (1)  The  Assistants  succeeded  in 
getting  a  law  passed  in  favor  of  a  Council  for  Life  ;  but  the  deputies  kept 
this  Council  from  acquiring  any  real  power,  and  after  three  years,  they 
secured,  indirectly,  its  abolition.  (2)  The  Assistants  tried  to  cut  down 
the  number  of  deputies,  arguing  that  the  freedom  of  the  people  lay  not  in 
the  number  of  representatives,  but  "in  the  thing,"  —  in  having  repre- 

1  In  1643,  the  law  ordered  that  kernels  of  corn  should  be  used  instead  of 
papers,  —  the  white  to  siguify  election ;  other  colors,  rejection.  For  changes 
in  the  system  of  nominations,  see  §78. 


88  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

sentatives  at  all;  while  the  deputies,  with  their  towns  at  their  back,  were 
anxious  to  have  a  number  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  Assistants.1  (3)  The 
deputies  wished  a  written  code  of  laws  ;  and  secured  it,  after  six  years' 
struggle,  against  active  and  passive  opposition  by  the  Assistants  (§81). 

68.  The  Negative  Voice  of  the  Magistrates.  —  Early  in  these 
conflicts,  the  Assistants  put  forward  an  amazing  claim,  under 
which  they  bade  fair  to  rob  the  freemen  of  all  that  was  really- 
worth  while  in  the  representative  government  they  had  won. 
The  charter  provided  that  a  quorum  of  seven  magistrates  (out 
of  eighteen)  must  be  present  to  enable  any  Court  to  do  busi- 
ness. To  prevent  embarrassment,  in  1631,  while  they  were 
keeping  the  number  of  Assistants  small,  the  magistrates  them- 
selves had  enacted  (unconstitutionally)  that  five  should  be  a 
quorum.  In  the  summer  General  Court  of  1634  (the  first 
court  after  the  introduction  of  representative  government),  a 
vote  obnoxious  to  some  of  the  magistrates  was  passed  by  a 
good  majority;  but  the  magistrates  (even  those  who  had  voted 
for  the  measure)  declared  it  not  carried  "because  there  were 
not  seven  magistrates  in  the  vote."  That  is,  they  not  only  re- 
stored the  charter  provision,  now  that  it  suited  their  class,  but 
they  interpreted  it  to  mean  that  seven  magistrates  must  vote 
in  favor  of  a  motion  to  enable  it  to  carry,  no  matter  what  the 
vote  of  the  deputies  might  be.  Since  there  were  then  so  few 
magistrates,  this  meant  that  the  deputies  could  carry  no  meas- 
ure for  which  the  Assistants  were  not  practically  unanimous. 

The  Assistants  called  this  their  right  to  a  negative  voice. 
It  was  never  recognized  in  law  in  just  this  form;  but  the 
ministers  were  brought  in,  upon  occasion,  to  argue  for  it,  when 
the  deputies  grew  restive  ;  and,  in  practice,  the  few  Assistants 
secured  a  veto  upon  the  larger  body  of  deputies. 

Israel  Stoughton,  a  deputy  from  Dorchester,  attacked  this  claim  in  a 
book  with  "many  weak  arguments,"  complaining  also  of  the  great  dis- 
cretionary power  of  the  Assistants  in  their  judicial  work.  He  was  called 
up  as  a  culprit,  and  made  to  recant.  His  book  was  burned,  and  he  was 
dismissed  from  office  and  disfranchised  for  three  years,  despite  a  petition 

1  This  contest  has  been  referred  to  in  §  62. 


A  BICAMERAL  LEGISLATURE  89 

in  his  favor  by  his  constituents.  Winthrop  had  written  a  book  in  favor 
of  the  negative  voice.  The  magistrates  saw  nothing  wrong  in  controversy 
on  that  side.1  But  free  speech  and  a  free  press  were  no  more  part  of  the 
Puritan  political  scheme  than  was  the  right  of  petition  (§  62). 

69.  Separation  into  Two  Houses.  —  After  ten  years  of  such 
disputes,  deputies  and  Assistants  agreed  to  separate  into  two 
Houses,  —  each  House  to  have  its  own  organization  and  to 
manage  its  own  debates ;  each  to  have  the  right  to  introduce 
bills ;  and  the  consent  of  both  to  be  necessary  before  any  bill 
became  law.  Three  steps  may  be  traced  in  the  evolution  of 
this  first  bicameral  legislature  in  America. 

a.  In  1636  it  was  decreed  that  the  two  orders,  still  sitting  to- 
gether, should  vote  separately,  and  that  a  majority  of  each  order 
should  be  necessary  to  carry  a  measure. 

This  was  not  at  all  equivalent  to  two  Houses.  It  left  the  Assistants  a 
great  advantage.  They  would  do  most  of  the  debating,  and  they  could 
most  easily  combine  upon  a  policy  (being  a  permanent  body  with  frequent 
meetings  outside  the  General  Court).  The  arrangement  sanctioned  their 
veto  without  granting  any  compensation  to  the  deputies. 

6.  By  1641  the  deputies  were  permitted  to  organize  sepa- 
rately with  a  "  speaker "  of  their  own,  whenever  a  special 
occasion  made  such  action  desirable. 

c.  In  1644  the  division  became  regular  and  permanent. 
The  immediate  occasion  was  the  long  dispute  over  the  poor 
woman's  stray  pig  (§  67).  Well  does  Winthrop  say,  —  "There 
fell  out  a  great  matter  upon  a  small  occasion."  But  of  course 
the  real  causes  were  the  deeper  differences.2 

1  The  magistrates  recognized  the  right  of  free  debate  in  the  General  Court, 
because  of  the  emphasis  in  English  history  upon  freedom  of  speech  in  parlia- 
ment. Stoughton  might  have  spoken  his  "  weak  arguments  "  in  the  meetings 
of  the  legislature  with  impunity.  The  thing  in  question  was  the  right  of  a 
citizen  outside  the  legislature  to  criticize  the  government.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  as  soon  as  Stoughton' s  "  disfranchisement"  had  expired,  the  people 
elected  him  to  the  Board  of  Assistants. 

2  When  these  disputes  had  rendered  life  under  one  roof  unendurable,  the 
existence  of  a  two-House  parliament  in  England  pointed  to  a  remedy.  The 
law  of  Massachusetts  in  1644  refers  to  European  example  as  one  justification 
for  the  change  (Source  Book,  No.  80,  close).    The  leaders  had  recognized  for 


90  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO  1660 

The  magistrates  kept  their  negative  voice;  but  the  deputies  had  won 
separate  organization,  freedom  from  interference  in  their  debates,  and 
greater  dignity  in  their  own  eyes.  In  time,  as  their  sense  of  independ- 
ence increased,  their  size  gave  them  the  preponderance.  The  separation 
came  as  the  result  of  a  democratic  demand,  and  was  at  the  time  a  democratic 
victory.     (Cf.  §  41,  for  Maryland.) 

<  70.  Excursus':  Two-House  Legislatures  Then  and  Now.1  — Before  the 
Revolution,  all  the  colonies  had  two-House  legislatures  except  the  two 
latest  founded,  — Pennsylvania  and  Georgia,  — and  by  1790  these  States 
also  had  adopted  that  form.'2  That  system  has  continued  universal  ever 
since  in  the  States  of  our  Union,  and  until  recently  its  wisdom  has  hardly 
been  questioned.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  reasons  given  to-day  for 
preserving  the  two-House  arrangement  never  occurred  to  the  men  icho 
established  it,  and  that  their  reasons  have  wholly  faded  away. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  aristocracy  was  so  strong  that  the  aristo- 
cratic "  Council  "  (whether  elected  as  in  Massachusetts,  or  appointed  as  in 
Virginia)  dominated  a  one-House  Assembly.  The  change  to  two  Houses 
icas  set  in  motion  everywhere  by  the  democratic  element,  as  a  step  toward 
greater  freedom  of  action.     This  condition  has  disappeared  absolutely. 

When  we  reach  the  Revolution,  democracy  has  gained  in  power;  and 
it  was  the  aristocracy  which  preserved  the  two-House  system.  The  upper 
House  was  desired  as  a  separate  and  coordinate  branch,  in  order  that 
property  and  station  might  intrench  themselves  safely  in  it,  to  veto  further 
encroachment  by  the  rising  tide  of  democracy.  The  democratic  forces, 
too,  were  reconciled  to  the  plan  by  an  argument  which  was  falsely  supposed 
to  have  democratic  value.  Government  had  so  long  meant  despotism, 
that,  for  a  while,  men  who  loved  liberty  believed  that  government  the  best 
which  was  weakest  and  could  not  govern.  Hence  arose  the  favorite  eight- 
eenth century  device  of  weakening  government  by  an  elaborate  system  of 
checks  and  balances,  setting  one  part  over  against  another,  and  regarding 
a  deadlock  as  a  palladium  of  liberty.  But  to-day  no  one  would  openly 
use  the  aristocratic  argument;  nor  do  we  any  longer  fear  government. 
We  do  not  look  upon  it  as  a  dangerous  enemy  or  a  cruel  master,  to  be 
chained,  but  as  a  helpful  servant,  to  be  made  efficient ;  and  ardent  demo- 
crats begin  to  question  whether  we  should  not  strike  from  that  servant's 
limbs  these  old  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century  fetters. 

some  years  that  such  a  change  must  come.  See  the  famous  Cotton  letter  to 
Lords  Say  and  Brooke  in  Source  Book,  No.  75,  for  evidence  of  this. 

1  This  section  may  be  discussed  in  class,  with  books  open. 

2  Vermont  had  a  one-House  legislature  from  1777,  when  she  split  off  from 
New  York  (§  154,  note),  until  1791,  when  she  was  admitted  to  the  Union. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  91 

A  new  reason,  however,  has  been  brought  forward  in  favor  of  the  divi- 
sion. Government,  it  is  urged,  should  express  the  people's  will,  not  their 
whim;  and  the  deliberate  action  necessitated  by  a  two-House  arrange- 
ment prevents  hasty  and  unconsidered  action.  Whether  this  is  a  suffi- 
cient reason  to  overbalance  the  inconveniences  of  the  system  is  the  question 
to  be  decided.  The  historian  may  point  out  that  it  is  a  new  reason,  and 
also  that,  outside  America,  two  Houses  is  not  the  modern  democratic 
custom.  That  plan  is  found,  it  is  true,  in  many  countries,  either  to  intrench 
aristocracy  or  as  a  historic  survival ;  but  the  numerous  states  of  Switzer- 
land, the  new  nations  of  the  Balkans,  and  most  of  the  Canadian  prov- 
inces, all  have  one- House  legislatures, — as  did  the  Dutch  republics  in 
South  Africa  while  they  lasted. 

The  desirability  of  two  Houses  in  our  national  legislature  is  a  somewhat 
different  question.  The  Senate  was  adopted  there  partly  to  intrench 
wealth  and  aristocracy,  as  the  debates  of  the  Federal  Convention  show 
(  §  200  ) ,  but  partly  to  suit  the  new  federal  plan,  —  one  House  to  represent 
the  State  governments,  the  other  to  represent  the  people.  A  similar  reason 
has  led  the  Swiss,  the  Australians,  and  the  Canadians  each  to  make  their 
central  legislature  on  the  two-House  plan. 

f-  E.     Local  Government 

"  Town  meetings  are  to  liberty  what  primary  schools  are  to  science.'''' — 

TOCQUEVILLE. 

71.  Origin  of  Town  Government.  — Most  Xew  England  towns 
in  the  seventeenth  century  were  mere  agricultural  villages. 
Farmers  did  not  live  scattered  through  the  country,  as  now, 
each  on  his  own  farm.  They  dwelt  together,  somewhat  after 
European  fashion,1  in  villages  of  from  thirty  to  a  hundred  or 
two  hundred  householders,  with  their  fields  stretching  off  in 
all  directions. 

These  local  units  developed  a  system  of  government  for 
their  local  affairs  wholly  distinct  from  the  general  colonial 
government  we  have  been  studying.  At  first,  the  General 
Court  and  Assistants  tried  to  care  for  the  whole  business  of 
government,  local  as  well  as  central,  appointing  justices  and 
constables  for  each  settlement.  But  this  left  multitudes  of 
important  matters  unprovided  for.     So,   in  1633,  Dorchester 

1  Modern  History,  §  36. 


92  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

and  Watertown  set  up  town  governments,  with  a  new  ma- 
chinery of  town  meetings  and  selectmen.  In  1634  several  new 
towns  were  founded  (§  60),  and  the  number  increased  rapidly 
in  the  next  few  years.  All  these  units,  old  and  new,  quickly 
followed  the  Dorchester  example ;  and  a  little  later  the  settle- 
ments in  Plymouth  colony  took  similar  action  (§  53). 

From  the  first,  on  special  occasions,  the  people  of  a  town  met  to  dis- 
cuss matters  of  interest,  as  at  the  famous  Watertown  meeting  of  1632. 
But  now  the  towns  ordered  that  such  meetings  be  held  regularly  (once  a 
month,  perhaps),  to  settle  matters  of  local  concern.  Each  town  chose  a 
town  clerk,  to  keep  records  of  the  by-laws,  or  town  laws,  passed  in  the 
meetings,  and  elected  a  committee  ("the  seven  men,"  "the  nine  men,1' 
"the  selected  townsmen"1)  with  a  vague  authority  " to  manage  the 
prudentials  of  the  town"  between  the  town  meetings. 

72.  Relation  of  the  Town  to  the  Colony.  —  These  local  govern- 
ments seem  to  have  grown  up,  out  of  the  needs  of  the  people, 
without  definite  legal  sanction ;  but  very  soon  the  General 
Court  adopted  them  as  essential  parts  of  the  political  scheme. 
In  theory,  the  towns  derived  their  powers  from  the  central  govern- 
ment, and  possessed  only  such  authority  as  that  government 
delegated  to  them.2  From  this  viewpoint,  the  town  was  pri- 
marily a  division  of  the  state  for  various  purposes :  (1)  for 
military  organization,  — each  town  being  compelled  to  maintain 
a  train  band;  (2)  for  political  organization,  —  delegates  to  the 
General  Court  being  chosen  by  towns ;  (3)  for  the  organization 
of  a  school  system  ;  (4)  for  the  assessing  and  collecting  of 
taxes;  and  (5)  for  the  administration  of  justice.  The  central 
legislature  located  the  town,  gave  it  its  territory,  named  it,  and 
required  it  to  maintain  roads,  schools,  and  certain  military  and 

1  About  the  middle  of  the  century,  this  term  came  to  be  written  "  Select- 
men "  ;  but  the  New  Englander  still  pronounces  it  "  Select  Men."  See  Source 
Book,  Nos.  66,  81,  83,  89,  105,  c,  for  the  growth  and  character  of  town  govern- 
ment. 

2  When  the  later  colonies  of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  were  founded, 
it  happened  that  towns  came  into  existence  before  any  definite  central  govern- 
ment had  been  provided.  As  a  result,  in  these  states  the  towns  have  always 
preserved  a  peculiar  degree  of  independence. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  93 

police  arrangements.     Fines  were  imposed  by  the  legislature 
upon  towns  that  failed  to  come  up  to  the  standard  set  by  law. 

73.  Self-government  of  the  Town.  —  In  actual  practice,  how- 
ever, a  marvelous  degree  of  independence  was  left  the  town. 
The  town  meeting  appointed  all  local  officers,  —  not  merely 
selectmen  and  clerk,  but  school  trustees,  hog  reeve,  fence 
viewer,  constable,  treasurer,  pound  keeper,  sealer  of  weights 
and  measures,  measurer  of  corn  and  lumber,  overseer  of  chim- 
neys, overseer  of  the  village  almshouse  ;  and  for  most  of  these 
officers  it  alone  defined  all  the  powers  and  duties.  It  divided 
the  town  lands  among  the  inhabitants,  —  such  a  part  as  it 
chose  to  divide,  —  deciding  also  upon  the  size  of  building  lots, 
whether  quarter-acre,  acre,  two  acres,  or  five ;  and  it  passed 
ordinances  regarding  the  remaining  town  fields  and  pastures, 
the  keeping  up  of  fences,  the  running  of  cattle  and  hogs,  the 
term  of  the  school  and  its  support,  the  support  of  the  church, 
and  of  the  town  poor. 

This  town  democracy  had  its  disadvantages.  Action  was 
slow,  and  was  often  hindered  by  ignorance  and  petty  neighbor- 
hood jealousies.  But  the  best  thing  about  the  town  meeting, 
—  better  than  anything  it  did,  —  was  the  constant  training  in 
politics  it  gave  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  Fitly  it  has  been 
called  the  best  school  of  political  liberty  the  world  ever  saw. 

74.  Town  Citizenship.  —  All  the  people  in  a  town  could  come 
to  town  meeting  and  could  speak  there;1  but  not  all  could 
vote.  At  the  base  of  society  in  every  town  was  a  class  of 
"  cottagers,"  or  squatters,  who  were  permitted  to  reside  in  the 
place  at  the  town's  pleasure  only,2  and  who  could  not  acquire 
land  there,  nor  claim  any  legal  right  to  the  use  of  the  town  pasture, 
or  "  commons."  Servants  whose  term  of  service  was  up,  and 
strangers  who  drifted  into  the  town  as  mere  day  laborers, 
usually  passed  at  first  into  this  class. 

1  Body  of  Liberties  (12),  in  Source  Book,  No.  78. 

2  For  instance,  the  Hartford  Records  contain  a  graut  of  "  lotts  "  to  certain 
"cottagers,"  "to  have  onely  at  the  Tovmes  courtesie,  with  libertie  to  fetch 
wood  and  keepe  swine  or  cowes  on  the  common." 


94  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

The  people  in  a  town  who  held  full  town  citizenship  were 
known  as  "  inhabitants."  This  term  had  a  fixed  meaning.  A 
"  cottager,"  however  worthy,  or  a  newcomer,  of  whatever  rank, 
could  be  "  admitted  inhabitant "  only  by  vote  of  the  town.  In 
practice,  this  class  included  all  gentlemen  and  industrious  arti- 
sans and  freeholders  (§  65).  That  is,  it  included  all  who  had 
the  colonial  franchise,  —  all  "  freemen,"  —  and  many  others, 
because  church  membership  was  not  necessary  for  admission. 

Thus  the  town  government  in  Massachusetts  was  more  democratic  than  the 
central  government1  The  body  of  citizens  was  more  extensive,  and  the 
citizens  acted  directly,  not  through  representatives.  And  this  town  de- 
mocracy was  significant,  because  the  town  governments  touched  the  life 
of  the  people  at  many  more  points,  and  at  more  vital  ones,  than  did  the 
central  government. 

75.  Excursus:  The  Virginia  County  and  the  New  England 
Town.  —  The  political  difference  between  Virginia  and  Massa- 
chusetts lay  more  in  local  government  than  in  the  central. 
Especially  after  1691  (§  101),  the  central  governments  of  the 
two  provinces  grew  much  more  alike,  but  the  local  governments 
grew  farther  and  farther  apart ;  and  the  influence  of  local  gov- 
ernment upon  society  is  so  great  that  Virginia  as  a  whole  grew 
more  aristocratic,  and  Massachusetts  more  democratic. 

At  bottom,  the  causes  of  the  difference  were  largely  physical. 
In  Virginia  the  soil,  climate,  and  products  made  it  profitable  to 
cultivate  large  plantations  by  cheap  labor  under  overseers.  In 
Massachusetts,  with  its  sterile  soil,  farming  was  profitable  only 

1  This  divergence  was  not  pleasing  to  the  central  government.  At  first 
(September,  1635)  the  General  Court  decreed  that  the  town  franchise  should 
belong  only  to  freemen  ;  but  this  narrow  policy  quickly  became  a  dead  letter 
in  practice.  Then,  the  General  Court  tried  to  compel  the  towns  to  choose 
town  officers  only  from  "freemen  "  ;  but  the  towns  disregarded  this  restriction 
also;  and  in  1642  the  Court  decreed  that  other  inhabitants  might  be  chosen, 
provided  a  majority  of  the  town  board  were  freemen.  In  1656  a  law  of  the 
General  Court  set  up  a  low  property  qualification  for  town  citizenship.  All 
inhabitants  worth  £24,  in  estate,  were  recognized  as  entitled  to  full  citizenship 
for  town  purposes.  This,  of  course,  did  not  make  them  "freemen,"  but  it 
removed  all  check  upon  their  holding  town  office. 


LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  95 

when  a  man  tilled  his  own  ground,  with  at  most  one  or  two 
servants  working  under  his  own  eyes.  In  Virginia,  therefore, 
population  became  scattered,  while  in  New  England  it  remained 
grouped  in  little  agricultural  villages.  In  Virginia,  all  the  people 
could  not  easily  come  together  for  effective  action.  The  county 
became  the  political  unit,  and  control  fell  naturally  to  the 
wealthy  planters  in  small  Boards  (§  103).  New  England  had 
no  counties  for  some  time,  and  then  only  for  judicial  purposes. 
Throughout  the  colonial  period,  the  town  remained  the  political 
unit ;  and  all  the  people  of  the  town  came  together  frequently, 
to  take  part  in  matters  that  concerned  their  common  life.  The 
Virginia  type  of  local  government  developed  the  most  remarkable 
group  of  leaders  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.1  The  New  Eng- 
land type  trained  a  whole  people  to  democracy  by  constant  prac- 
tice at  their  own  doors.  Both  contributed  something  to  our 
national  development;  but  the  New  England  type  has  done 
most  to  Americanize  our  institutions. 

76-  Excursus :  Later  Developments  in  Local  Government.  —  The 
Middle  colonies,  soon  to  be  founded,  developed  an  intermediate  type  of 
local  government,  with  both  towns  and  counties.2  Then,  after  the  Rev- 
olution, Virginia  and  New  England  became  centers  for  distributing  popu- 
lation south  and  west  (ch.  vii) .  The  people  of  each  district  carried  with 
them  their  own  form  of  local  government.  The  Virginia  county  prevails 
generally  over  the  South.  In  the  West  the  result  was  mixed.  The  New 
Englanders  carried  the  town  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois;  and  the  Vir- 
ginians, coming  into  the  southern  parts  of  the  same  States,  brought  the 
county.  The  two  institutions  wrestled,  but  neither  won  a  complete  vic- 
tory. Throughout  the  West  there  resulted  a  mixed  type,  somewhat  like 
that  of  New  York  or  Pennsylvania. 

Moreover,  the  extreme  types  have  gradually  come  somewhat  nearer 

1  This  will  be  more  easily  understood  after  a  treatment  of  later  Virginia 
history  (§§  102-106,  and  the  references  to  Virginia  in  the  story  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary disturbances).  If  it  seems  best,  §§  76  and  77  can  be  deferred  until 
after  §  106 ;  and  in  any  case  they  may  be  reviewed  then  with  profit. 

2  In  New  York,  which  had  many  settlers  from  New  England,  the  town  was 
more  important  than  the  county ;  while  in  Pennsylvania  the  county  was  the 
more  important. 


96  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

one  another  in  their  first  homes.  In  the  South,  the  town  system  has 
made  some  gains;  while  in  New  England  it  has  lost  some  of  its  early 
vitality  —  through  the  influx  of  foreign  populations  and  the  growth  of 
city  life.1 

In  some  States  to-day,  in  the  West  and  Central  divisions,  there  is  an 
annual  town  meeting  (primarily  for  the  election  of  officers),  at  which  any 
business  of  the  town  can  be  settled  ;  while  special  meetings  may  be  called 
on  occasion.  But  no  district  out  of  New  England  has  reproduced  the 
weekly  or  monthly  meeting  ;  and  the  town  officers  count  for  more  in  the 
West  than  in  the  original  New  England  town.  School  matters  are  often 
managed  by  a  distinct  organization.  In  some  States,  where  there  is  no 
town  meeting  proper,  the  voters  do  still  elect  a  board  of  supervisors,  who 
manage  town  affairs. 

The  county  usually  has  a  legislative  board  of  supervisors  or  commis- 
sioners, besides  its  administrative  and  judicial  officers,  with  extensive 
powers  over  raising  and  expending  county  money,  and  over  the  care  of 
the  poor,  of  highways,  and  of  public  health. 

Exercise.2  —  1.  Study  some  "  town  "  in  your  county  (or  in  a  neighbor- 
ing one)  for  size,  population,  amount  of  taxable  property,  rate  of  taxation. 
Make  a  table  of  the  town  officers,  showing  how  elected,  for  what  terms, 
with  what  general  powers  and  duties.  Has  the  town  any  judicial  officers  ? 
Are  school  affairs  managed  by  the  town  or  by  a  separate  organization  ? 
(If  the  latter,  describe  it.)     Is  there  a  town  meeting  ? 

2.    Study  the  early  New  England  town  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  83. 

1  Outside  New  England,  the  nearest  approach  to  the  old-fashioned  town 
meeting  as  an  organ  of  frequent  government  is  the  school  district  meeting  in 
small  towns  and  villages  in  the  West. 

The  decay  of  the  town  meeting  is  a  serious  matter.  It  was  a  direct  de- 
mocracy. Almost  all  modern  local  government  is  indirect,  representative  de- 
mocracy. The  town  meeting  will  never  be  restored  to  its  old  vitality;  but 
many  thinkers  believe  that  some  substitute  must  be  found  to  give  the  politi- 
cal training  which  it  once  gave,  and  hope  to  find  such  a  substitute  in  the  de- 
vices of  "  direct  democracy  "  known  as  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall 
(§§463-470). 

2 This  study  may  be  carried  on,  by  degrees,  while  the  class  is  proceeding 
with  the  history ;  but  most  of  the  historical  background  for  an  understand- 
ing of  town  and  county  government  in  the  United  States  has  now  been  sup- 
plied. The  study  of  city  government  belongs  to  a  later  period  (§  465).  The 
following  references  for  local  government  may  be  useful :  Bryce,  American 
Commonwealth,  chs.  48,  49;  Wilson,  The  State,  524  ff.  Much  information  may 
be  found  in  the  Legislative  Manual  for  the  State  (of  which  every  school 
should  have  copies)  and  in  standard  books  upon  the  State  government. 


POLITICAL  MACHINERY  97 

3.  Are  the  members  of  your  county  board  elected  by  districts  or  "at 
large"?  For  how  long  a  term?  Who  collects  taxes  in  your  county? 
Make  a  table  of  administrative  officers  of  the  county,  corresponding  to 
that  suggested  above  for  town  officers.  Where  are  the  county  buildings, 
and  what  are  their  uses  ?  Who  decides  when  a  new  one  shall  be  built  ? 
Who  decides  where  they  shall  be  located  ?  Compare  (in  any  large  atlas) 
the  boundaries  of  the  counties  in  the  western  States  in  general  with 
those  in  the  older  States  for  regularity. 

F.     Evolution  of  Political  Machinery 

77.  The  Ballot.  —  Reference  has  been  made  to  the  ballot  in 
England  (§  64,  note)  and  to  its  introduction  into  politics  in 
Massachusetts,  —  first  (1634)  to' defeat  Winthrop  for  governor, 
and  then  to  drop  Ludlow  from  the  Board  of  Assistants.  In 
both  cases  the  voters  resorted  to  the  ballot  to  protect  them- 
selves against  intimidation.  From  this  time  its  use  was  un- 
broken at  the  Court  of  Elections  in  choosing  the  officers  of  the 
central  government.1 

The  next  step  was  to  introduce  the  same  democratic  device 
in  town  elections.  This  was  done  first  at  Boston,  in  December, 
1634,  when  a  committee  was  chosen  to  divide  public  lands 
among  the  inhabitants.  The  people  "feared  that  the  richer 
men  would  give  the  poorer  sort  no  great  proportions  of  land," 
and  they  used  the  ballot  in  order  the  more  easily  to  leave  out 
the  aristocratic  element 2  In  the  following  September,  a  law 
of  the  General  Court  established  vote  by  secret  ballot  in  the 
towns  as  the  regular  method  of  electing  deputies  to  the  Gen- 
eral Court. 

1  See  Source  Book,  Nos.  67,  a,  70. 

2  Source  Book,  No.  71.  The  seven  men  of  the  committee  were  all  of  "  the 
inferior  sort,"  except  that  Winthrop  himself  barely  got  on  at  the  bottom  of 
the  poll.  Winthrop  tells  the  story  with  naive  dignity.  "  Mr.  Winthrop  re- 
fused to  be  one  upon  such  an  election  .  .  .  telling  them  that  though  he  did 
not  apprehend  any  personal  injury,  .  .  .  yet  he  was  much  grieved  that  Boston 
should  be  the  first  who  should  shake  off  their  magistrates."  Then  Mr.  Cotton 
"  showed  them  that  it  was  the  Lord's  order  among  the  Israelites  to  have  all 
such  business  committed  to  the  elders,"  and  persuaded  them  to  have  a  new 
election. 


98  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

There  is  another  way  in  which  the  ballot  aids  democracy. 
Its  use  makes  it  possible  for  men  to  vote  at  their  own  homes, 
in  small  election  districts,  instead  of  being  required  all  to  come 
to  one  central  point.  Such  an  arrangement  permits  more  voters 
to  take  part  in  elections ;  and  the  men  of  Massachusetts  soon 
used  the  ballot  for  this  purpose.  In  March,  1636,  it  was 
ordered  that  the  freemen  of  six  outlying  towns  might  send 
"  proxies  "  to  the  next  Court  of  Elections.  During  the  next 
December,  Governor  Vane  resigned,  and  a  special  election  was 
called.  "In  regard  of  the  season,"  any  freemen  who  chose 
were  authorized  "to  send  their  votes  in  writing."  And  the 
next  spring  (March,  1637)  this  method  of  voting  for  governor 
and  Assistants  was  made  permanent.  Out  of  the  use  of 
proxies  a  true  ballot  in  the  several  towns  had  developed.1 

78.  Nominations.  —  When  men  came  to  elect  the  governor 
and  Assistants  in  the  several  towns,  as  just  described  (instead 
of  all  coming  to  the  General  Court  in  Boston  for  the  purpose), 
it  was  necessary,  of  course,  to  know  in  advance  from  what 
names  the  choice  was  to  be  made.  The  old  system  of  nomina- 
tion (§  63,  close,  and  §  66,  a),  always  unsatisfactory  and  undemo- 
cratic, broke  down  ;  and  two  democratic  methods  were  tried. 

a.  A  primary  election.  In  1640,  it  was  decreed  that  in  each 
town  in  March  the  freemen  should  nominate  Assistants  by 
ballot,  and  the  votes  of  all  the  towns  should  be  carried  to 
Boston  and  counted.  The  eighteen  men  having  the  highest 
total  vote  were  declared  nominated ;  and  at  the  elections  in  May 
no  one  could  be  voted  for  whose  name  was  not  on  the  list.  At 
that  election,  if  a  nominee  failed  to  get  a  majority  of  the  votes 
cast,  a  vacancy  was  left  on  the  Board  until  next  year. 

b.  A  representative  convention.  The  troublesome  thing  about 
this  primary  system  in  thattday  was  that  different  towns  might 
vote  for  wholly  different  sets  of  nominees.  No  machinery  had 
been  devised  for  candidates  to  be  suggested  in  advance  to  the 
entire  colony.     So,  after  two  trials,  in  1642,  another  system  of 

1  An  admirable  example  of  "  development "  :  first  some  voters  for  one  time ; 
then  all  voters  for  one  time;  then  all  for  all  times. 


THE  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  99 

nomination  was  attempted.  Each  town  chose  one  or  two  rep- 
resentatives, and  these  delegates  met  in  a  central  convention 
to  nominate  candidates  to  be  voted  on  at  the  next  election. 

In  the  absence  of  political  parties  and  other  modern  political  machinery, 
neither  system  worked  altogether  satisfactorily  ;  and  for  years  Massachu- 
setts oscillated  back  and  forth  between  the  two.  At  a  later  time  in  Ameri- 
can politics  the  convention  became  universal ;  but  a  little  before  1900  there 
began  a  drift  to  the  primary  election  in  a  better  form  (§§  323-324,  461). 


G.     Evolution  of  a  Judiciary 

79.  Courts.  —  Soon  after  Winthrop  landed,  the  Assistants 
appointed  from  their  own  number  a  "justice  of  the  peace  "  for 
each  important  town,  to  punish  minor  offenses  and  to  decide 
minor  cases  (Source  Book,  No.  63  (1)).  Above  these  local 
courts  was  the  central  Court  of  Assistants;  and  higher  still 
was  the  "  General  Court,"  which  sometimes  dealt  with  judicial 
matters.  But  the  exact  relations  between  these  grades  of 
courts  were  not  clearly  defined.  Any  matter,  however  unim- 
portant, might  come  originally  into  the  highest  court  if  a  mem- 
ber of  that  body  chose  to  introduce  it  ;  and  the  two  higher 
courts  mingled  executive  and  legislative  matters  with  their 
judicial  functions  at  the  same  sittings. 

In  1636  and  1638  the  system  was  reorganized.  (1)  The 
justices'  court  gave  way  to  a  more  complete  system  of  town 
courts,  no  longer  wholly  appointed  from  above,  but  elected  in 
part  by  the  local  units.  (2)  The  towns  were  grouped  into  four 
districts,  known  later  as  counties,  each  with  its  county  court 
("  inferior  quarter  courts  ")  meeting  four  times  a  year.  (3)  The 
Assistants  began  to  hold  special  meetings  four  times  a  year 
("great  quarter  courts")  solely  to  administer  justice,  leaving 
other  business  to  other  meetings.  (4)  The  General  Court 
kept  its  function  of  a  "  Supreme  Court "  on  special  occasions. 

The  county  courts  were  the  new  element.  Like  the  town  courts,  they 
were  partly  democratic  in  composition.  Each  consisted  of  at  least  one 
Assistant,  residing  in  the  district,  and  of  three  or  four  other  men  chosen  for 


100  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

the  purpose  by  popular  vote.  This  court  could  deal  with  all  civil  suits  (suits 
about  property)  in  which  less  than  £20  was  involved,  and  with  criminal 
cases  where  the  penalty  did  not  extend  to  death  or  mutilation  ;  but  any 
case  might  be  appealed  from  it  to  the  "great  quarter  court." 

That  higher  court,  therefore,  was  an  "appellate  court  "  for  these 
minor  matters,  and  also  a  " court. of  original  jurisdiction"1  for  the 
more  important  cases  above  the  province  of  the  county  courts.  It  re- 
mained aristocratic  in  composition,  and  indeed  was  simply  the  Board  of 
Assistants  sitting  for  a  special  purpose  at  stated  times. 

% 
80.   Juries.  —  Early  in  the  first  summer  in  Massachusetts,  a 

man  was  found  dead  under  suspicious  circumstances.  The 
magistrates  at  once  appointed  a  body  of  sworn  men  to  investi- 
gate the  matter.  This  was  a  coroner's  jury,  an  old  English  in- 
stitution. It  accused  a  certain  Palmer  of  murder.  Palmer  was 
trijed  before  the  Assistants  with  a  trial  jury  (petit  jury)  of 
twelve  men.  After  hearing  the  evidence,  this  jury  gave  a 
\ verdict  of  "not  guilty,"  and  the  magistrates  declared  Palmer 
acquitted.  Soon  after,  a  jury  was  impaneled  to  try  Captain 
Endicott  on  a  charge  of  assault  and  it  gave  a  verdict  against 
the  hot-tempered  captain. 

This  was  merely  in  accord  with  English  custom.2  There  was 
no  written  law  on  the  matter  until  1634.  Then  the  revolution- 
ary General  Court,  which  set  up  representative  government, 
established  also  this  judicial  bulwark  of  liberty,  by  enacting 
that  thereafter  all  criminal  trials  involving  life  or  limb  must 
be  held  before  a  jury.3  By  custom,  the  jury  continued  to  be 
used  in  minor  criminal  cases  also. 

A  year  later  the  English  jury  of  inquest  was  introduced.  So 
far,  offenders  had  been  brought  to  trial  only  on  the  initiative  of 
some  magistrate ;  but  in  the  spring  of  1635  the  General  Court 
ordered  that  two  "grand  juries"  should  meet  each  year,  fall 

1  The  teacher  may  well  afford  time  to  illustrate  such  terms  as  "  appellate  " 
and  "original  jurisdiction,"  and  "civil"  and  "criminal"  cases,  until  the 
concepts  are  clear. 

2  On  the  origin  of  the  jury  in  England,  see  Modern  History,  §§  130, 144. 

8  The  Plymouth  code  of  1636  provided  for  a  jury  in  all  cases.  Cf.  also  the 
Massachusetts  Body  of  Liberties  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  78. 


THE   JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  101 

and  spring,  to  present  to  the  court  all  offenders  against  the  law 
and  the  public  welfare.1 

Thus  the  first  five  years  in  Massachusetts  saw  the  adoption  (first  by- 
custom  and  then  by  statute  law)  of  the  English  practice  of  juries  in  the 
administration  of  justice, — the  grand  jury  for  inquest  (with  its  special 
variety,  the  coroners'  jury  for  a  particular  kind  of  inquiry),  and  the 
petit  jury  for  trial.  It  is  sometimes  said,  with  much  exaggeration,  that 
in  the  absence  of  written  law,  the  Puritans  always  followed  the  Jewish 
law.  Sometimes  they  did  so  in  fixing  penalties;  but  in  this  supremely 
important  matter  of  legal  machinery  and  methods  they  followed  the  English 
Common  Law,  not  the  Old  Testament. 

81.  Written  Laws.  —  At  the  spring  Court  of  1635,  the  depu- 
ties made  a  demand  for  a  written  code  of  laws,  "conceiving 
great  danger  to  our  state,  in  regard  that  our  magistrates,  for  want 
of  positive  laws,  might  proceed  according  to  their  discretions." 
The  magistrates  were  making  law,  almost  at  will,  in  their  judi- 
cial decisions,  as  cases  arose,  —  sometimes,  ex  post  facto  laws. 
The  demand  of  the  democratic  deputies  was  proper,2  and  too 
strong  to  be  openly  denied ;  but  for  a  time  it  was  evaded.  The 
Court  appointed  a  committee  of  four  magistrates  to  prepare  a 
code ;  but  the  committee  failed  to  report.  A  year  later,  it  was 
enlarged  to  eight,  and  ordered  to  report  at  the  next  Court ;  but 
all  the  members  still  came  from  the  gentleman  class.     Mr.  Cot- 

1  The  terms  grand  and  petit  have  reference  only  to  the  original  size  of  the 
two  kinds  of  juries  in  England.  The  first  grand  jury  in  Massachusetts,  in  the 
fall  of  1635,  indicted  100  offenders,  showing  itself  much  more  active  than 
the  magistrates  had  been. 

2Cf.  the  democratic  demand  for  a  written  code  in  early  Athens,  and  in 
Rome  (Ancient  World,  §§  108,  note,  313).  To  be  sure,  in  Massachusetts  the  di- 
vision between  classes  was  very  much  less  than  in  those  early  states,  but  the 
same  general  tendency  may  be  traced.  In  Massachusetts  the  magistrates 
gave  one  reason,  not  of  a  class  nature,  for  resisting  the  demand.  They  had 
certain  customs  in  church  matters  in  direct  conflict  with  English  law.  Such 
opposition  was  forbidden  by  their  charter;  and,  if  those  customs  were  re- 
duced to  writing,  it  could  not  be  concealed.  On  the  other  hand,  "  the  people 
thought  their  condition  very  unsafe  while  so  much  power  rested  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  magistrates."  For  ex  post  facto  legislation  by  the  judges,  see 
Source  Book,  No.  65,  and  elsewhere.  • 


102  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO    1660 

ton,  one  of  the  committee,  did  present  a  code  modeled  wholly 
upon  the  Mosaic  law ;  but  this  was  so  unsatisfactory  that  no 
notice  was  taken  of  it.  Two  years  later  still  (1638),  the  demo- 
cratic element  had  learned  their  lesson.  They  took  the  initia- 
tive into  their  own  hands,  ordering  that  the  deputies  should 
collect  suggestions  from  the  freemen  of  their  several  towns,  and 
present  the  same  in  writing  to  a  new  committee  made  up  partly 
of  deputies.  Now  matters  began  to  move.  The  suggestions 
from  the  towns  were  reduced  to  form  in  1639,  and  sent  back 
to  all  the  towns  for  further  consideration,  "  that  the  freemen 
might  ripen  their  thought,"  and  make  further  suggestion.  The 
next  lot  of  returns  were  referred  to  two  clergymen,  John  Cotton 
and  Nathaniel  Ward ;  and,  in  1641,  each  of  these  gentlemen 
presented  a  full  code  to  the  General  Court.  After  further 
deliberation  and  discussion,  and  some  amendment,  the  code 
presented  by  Ward  was  adopted  the  same  year.  This  is  the 
famous  Body  of  Liberties.  In  name  and  character  it  marks  a 
great  advance  in  the  history  of  legislation.  {Source  Book,  No. 
78.) 

9% 

H.    Theocratic  Elements  in  the  Commonwealth 

82.  Religious  Purpose  of  the  Colonists.  —  In  England  the 
High-churchmen  had  been  wont  to  reproach  the  Low-church- 
men with  being  secretly  Separatists.  The  Low-church  Puri- 
tans repelled  the  charge  indignantly,  and,  to  prove  their  good 
faith,  joined  vehemently  in  denouncing  the  Separatists.  But 
when  they  reached  America,  they  found  themselves  more  in 
accord  with  that  despised  sect  than  they  had  themselves  sus- 
pected.1    Very  soon  they  did  separate  wholly  from  the  English 

1  Thomas  Hooker  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Puritan  clergy.  Before  he 
came  to  America,  while  a  fugitive  in  Holland,  he  was  called  a  Separatist. 
But  Cotton  Mather  says  he  had  "  an  extreme  aversion  "  to  that  sect;  and  he 
himself  wrote,  "  To  separate  from  the  faithful  assemblies  and  churches  in 
England,  as  no  churches,  is  an  error  in  judgment  and  a  sin  in  practice,  held 
and  maintained  by  the  Brownists  [Separatists] ;  and  to  communicate  with 
them  in  this  opinion  is  utterly  unlawful."    So,  too,  Francis  Higginson   ex- 


AN  ARISTOCRATIC   THEOCRACY  103 

Church,  refusing  even  to  recognize  its  ordination  of  clergymen. 
On  the  other  hand,  they  did  not  adopt  the  Separatist  program 
regarding  relation  to  the  state,  nor  did  they  entirely  separate 
one  congregation  from  another  in  matters  of  church  govern- 
ment. They  wished  to  maintain  a  union  between  church  and 
state.1  Indeed,  to  their  mind,  the  first  use  of  the  state  was  to 
preserve  their  religion  and  their  church  discipline. 

To  preserve  this  union  effectively,  they  adopted  three  distinct 
devices:  (1)  restriction  of  the  franchise  to  church  members; 
(2)  restriction  of  churches  to  those  approved  by  the  govern- 
ment and  by  the  other  churches ;  (3)  reference  of  political 
questions  to  the  clergy  organized  in  synods.  The  first  step 
was  taken  in  1631.  The  second  was  necessary  to  make  the 
first  effective,  and  it  was  taken  in  1636.  The  third  measure 
came  abolit  gradually. 

The  ministers  did  not  hold  office,  but  from  the  first  they  were  active  in 
politics.2  Their  sermons  abounded  in  political  teaching;  and  from  time  to 
time  individuals  among  them  were  consulted  by  the  magistrates  on  mat- 
ters of  importance.  Soon,  the  government  came  to  seek  the  collective 
opinion  of  the  ministry  by  circulars  of  inquiry.  This  did  not  result  in 
unanimity  ;  and  the  final  step  consisted  in  bringing  the  clergy  together  to 
formulate  an  opinion  which  might  weigh  as  that  of  a  united  body.  This 
was  done  first  on  a  purely  political  occasion,  —  the  question  of  resisting  a 
governor  from  England  (§  61)  ;  but  in  1637  the  clergy  began  to  hold 
synods  for  religious  matters,  and  advantage  was  taken  of  this  opportunity 
to  secure  greater  clerical  influence  upon  politics.3 

claimed,  as  the  shores  of  England  receded  from  view  (§  57):  "We  will  not 
say,  as  the  Separatists  are  wont  to  say,  Farewell,  Rome!  Farewell,  Babylon! 
But  we  will  say,  Farewell,  dear  England;  Farewell,  the  Church  of  God  in 
England,  and  all  Christian  friends  there."  Longer  and  more  emphatic  ex- 
pressions of  this  early  attitude  of  the  Puritans  are  given  in  the  Source  Book, 
No.  60  and  the  closing  passages  in  Nos.  52  and  62,  c. 

1Winthrop  declared  that  their  purpose  in  coming  to  America  was  "  to  seek 
out  a  place  of  cohabitation  under  a  due  form  of  government  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastical."  See  the  preamble  to  the  Connecticut  Fundamental  Orders 
(Source  Book,  No.  93)  for  a  fuller  statement  by  a  Puritan  commonwealth. 

2  Cf .  the  part  of  the  minister  of  Watertown  in  1632,  and  of  Cotton  at  the 
General  Court  of  1634,  and  of  Cotton  and  Ward  in  codifying  the  laws. 

3  Winthrop  tells,  with  evident  approval,  how  Mr.  Cotton,  from  numerous 
scriptural  texts,  "  proved  .  .  .  that  the  rulers  of  the  people  should  consult 


104  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

83.  The  Massachusetts  ideal  was  an  aristocratic  theocracy,  a  govern- 
ment by  the  best,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  God.  But,  in  practice,  the 
ministers  in  politics  proved  a  bulwark  of  class  domination.  In  every 
controversy  between  aristocracy  and  democracy,  the  ministers  found  an 
interpretation  of  some  Biblical  passage  which  would  support  the  aristoc- 
racy; and  the  "people"  were  able  to  make  headway  against  this  pre- 
ponderating influence  only  with  great  difficulty.  Indeed,  democratic 
progress  depended,  more  than  once,  upon  the  appearance  of  a  rare  demo- 
cratic champion  among  the  ministers,  like  Ward  of  Ipswich  (§8i)  or 
Hooker  of  Connecticut  (§  87). 1 

84.  Persecution.  —  The  purpose  of  the  early  Massachusetts 
Puritans  (in  their  own  words)  was  "to  build  a  City  of  G-od  on 
earth."  They  came  to  the  wilderness  not  so  much  to  escape  per- 
secution as  to  find  a  freer  chance  to  build  as  they  saw  fit,  where 
there  should  be  none  with  right  to  "hinder  them  ;  and  they  did 
not  mean  that  intruders  should  mar  their  work.  This  plan 
forbade  religious  toleration.  Religious  freedom  was  no  part  of 
the  Puritan's  program.  He  never  claimed  that  it  was.  It  was 
fundamentally  inconsistent  with  his  program.  The  Puritan 
was  trying  a  lofty  experiment,  for  which  he  sacrificed  home 
and  ease ;  but  he  could  not  try  it  at  all  without  driving  out 
from  his  "  City  of  the  Lord  "  those  who  differed  with  him.2 

The  leaders  claimed  that  the  charter  gave  them  power  to  ex- 
pel any  who  troubled  them.  Unfortunately  for  Puritan  logic, 
the  Massachusetts  charter  conferred  very  restricted  authority 
in  this  respect.3  Like  all  other  charters,  it  sanctioned  force 
against  invaders  ;  but  most  charters  also  forbade  newcomers  to 
settle  without  the  special  permission  of  the  government.  No 
such  provision  was  in  this  charter ;  but  none  the  less  the  Massa- 

with  the  ministers  of  the  churches  upon  occasion  of  any  war  to  be  undertaken, 
and  any  other  weighty  business,  though  the  case  should  seem  never  so  clear, 
as  David  in  the  case  of  Ziklag."    History,  I,  283  (1853  edition). 

1  By  1639  the  democracy  had  learned  a  lesson  from  their  opponents,  and 
managed  sometimes  to  put  forward  democratic  ministers  to  preach  "election 
sermons."     Find  evidence  in  the  Sou?'ce  Book,  No.  77. 

2  See  statements  by  Winthrop's  companions,  in  Source  Book,  No.  84. 
8  Source  Book,  No.  53. 


RELIGIOUS   PERSECUTION  105 

chusetts  government  assumed  authority  to  regulate  immigration. 
In  November,  1630,  two  "gentlemen"  from  England  came  to 
Massachusetts  by  way  of  Plymouth.  They  were  introduced  by 
Miles  Standish  ;  "  but,"  says  Winthrop,  "  having  no  testimony, 
we  would  not  receive  them."1  In  the  following  March,  the  As- 
sistants shipped  back  to  England  six  men  at  one  time,  without 
trial,  merely  upon  the  ground  that  they  were  "  unmeete  to  in- 
habit here " ;  while  for  years  there  were  occasional  entries  in 
the  records  like  the  following  :  "  Mr.  Thomas  Makepeace, 
because  of  his  novile  disposition,  is  informed  that  we  are  weary 
of  him,  unless  he  reform  "  ;  or  "John  Smith  is  ordered  to  remove 
himself  from  this  jurisdiction  for  divers  dangerous  opinions 
which  he  holdeth." 

All  this  gives  the  point  of  view  from  which  to  study  the 
famous  expulsions  of  Roger  Williams  and  Anne  Hutchinson. 

Roger  Williams  was  one  of  the  most  powerful  and  scholarly  of  the 
great  Puritan  clergy.  He  was  a  robust  character,  of  the  wildest  contra- 
dictions. He  had  rare  sweetness  of  temper  ;  but,  along  with  it,  a  genius 
for  getting  into  bitter  controversy.  He  was  broad-minded  on  great  ques- 
tions ;  but  he  could  quarrel  vehemently  over  fantastic  quibbles.  The 
charitable  Bradford  describes  him  as  possessing  "many  precious  parts, 
but  very  unsettled  in  judgment."  2 

Driven  from  England  by  Laud,  Williams  came  to  Massachusetts  in  the 
supply  ship  in  the  winter  of  1631  (§  60).  He  was  welcomed  warmly  by 
Winthrop  as  "a  godly  minister"  ;  but  it  was  soon  evident  that  he  had 
adopted  the  opinions  of  the  Separatists.  In  the  pulpit  he  scolded  at  all 
who  would  not  utterly  renounce  fellowship  with  English  churches,  and 

1  Cases  of  this  kind  are  totally  different,  of  course,  from  banishment  for 
crime,  —  though  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  colony  had  even  that  power,  any 
more  than  the  modern  State  of  Massachusetts.  The  extreme  caution  in  this 
particular  case  was  due  to  the  fact  that  these  intending  settlers  were  of 
the  gentry  class,  and  therefore  sure  to  be  influential.  No  such  care  was  used, 
ordinarily,  of  common  men.    Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  65  (4). 

2  Bradford  didn't  like  Williams :  "  I  desire  the  Lord  to  show  him  his  errors 
and  reduce  him  into  the  way  of  truth,  and  give  him  a  settled  judgment  and 
constancy  in  the  same ;  for  I  hope  he  belongs  to  the  Lord."  Eggleston  hits  off 
Williams'  weakness  well  in  saying  that  he  lacked  humor  and  sense  of  propor- 
tion, and  "could  put  the  questions  of  grace  after  meat  and  of  religious  free- 
dom into  the  same  category." 


106  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY   TO   1660 

he  preached  against  any  union  of  church  and  state,  holding  that  the 
magistrate  had  no  right  to  punish  for  Sabbath-breaking  or  for  other 
offenses  against  "  the  first  table"  (the  first  four  of  the  Commandments). 

At  Williams'  arrival,  it  was  intended  to  settle  him  in  Boston  ;  but, 
with  such  views,  Boston  was  no  place  for  him.  He  went  to  Plymouth  for 
a  time,  but  soon  returned  to  the  larger  colony  as  the  pastor  of  Salem.1 
Just  at  this  time  that  town  wanted  more  lands.  The  court  of  Assistants 
paid  no  public  attention  to  the  request,  but  let  it  be  known  privately  that, 
if  Salem  expected  the  grant,  it  bad  best  dismiss  Williams.  On  his  part, 
Williams  referred  to  the  other  churches  of  the  colony  as  "ulcered  and 
gangrened,"  and  called  the  clergy  "false  hirelings." 

An  opportunity  soon  offered  to  get  rid  of  him.  He  publicly  denied  the 
title  of  the  colony  to  its  lands,  affirming  that  the  King  had  told  "a  solemn 
lie  "  in  the  charter  in  claiming  right  to  give  title.  Such  words,  unrebuked, 
might  embroil  the  little  colony  with  the  home  government,  with  which  it 
was  already  in  trouble  enough  (§61).  The  magistrates  seized  the  ex- 
cuse, and  ordered  Williams  back  to  England.2  This  was  in  winter.  On 
account  of  the  bitter  season,  the  order  was  suspended  until  spring. 
The  magistrates  seem  to  have  understood  that  Williams  agreed  meantime 
not  to  teach  these  troublesome  doctrines.  He  continued  to  do  so,  how- 
ever ;  and  an  officer  was  sent  to  place  him  on  board  ship.  Forewarned 
by  Winthrop,  he  escaped  to  the  forest,  and  found  his  way  to  the  Narra- 
gansett  Indians.  The  next  spring  a  few  adherents  joined  him ;  and  the 
little  band  founded  Providence,  the  beginning  of  the  colony  of  Rhode 
Island  (1636). 

Williams  had  few  followers,  and  was  easily  disposed  of.  The  Hutchin- 
son episode  divided  the  colony  for  a  time  into  not  unequal  parts  ;  and  the 
majority,  to  maintain  their  tottering  supremacy,  resorted  to  dubious  politi- 
cal devices. 

Anne  Hutchinson  is  described  by  Winthrop  (who  hated  her)  as  a 
woman  of  "  ready  wit  and  bold  spirit. ' '  She  was  intellectual,  eloquent,  and 
enthusiastic.  Her  real  offense  seems  to  have  been  her  keen  contempt  for 
many  of  the  ministers  and  her  disrespect  toward  the  magistrates  ;  but 
she  held  religious  views  somewhat  at  variance  with  the  prevailing  ones.3 

i  Cannot  the  student  see,  in  the  early  history  of  Salem,  a  possible  expla- 
nation why  that  town  was  more  inclined  to  Separatist  doctrines  than  was  the 
rest  of  the  Bay  Colony  ? 

2  If  Williams  had  been  at  one  with  them  in  religion,  no  doubt  the  magis- 
trates would  have  found  some  nominal  punishment  for  his  overzeal,  — as  they 
did  with  Endicott,  who  just  at  this  time  cut  the  cross  out  of  the  English  flag, 
calling  it  an  idolatrous  symbol. 

8  Just  what  the  difference  was  it  is  hard  to  say.    At  one  time  Winthrop 


RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTION  107 

In  particular,  her  language  regarding  an  "inner  light"  was  twisted  by  her 
critics  into  a  claim  that  she  enjoyed  special  and  direct  revelations  from 
the  Holy  Spirit.  For  a  time  Boston  supported  her  with  great  unanimity, 
but  a  majority  in  all  the  other  churches  was  soon  rallied  against  her. 

Among  Mrs.  Hutchinson's  adherents  were  the  minister  Wheelwright, 
and  young  Harry  Yane,  governor  at  the  time.  In  the  winter  of  1637, 
Wheelwright  preached  a  sermon  declaiming  violently  against  the  ministers 
of  the  opposing  faction.  For  this  the  next  General  Court  (in  March) 
"  questioned  "  him,  and  voted  him  guilty  of  sedition,  in  spite  of  a  lengthy 
petition  from  Boston  for  freedom  of  speech.  The  majority  adopted  also 
a  shrewd  maneuver.  To  lessen  the  influence  of  heretical  Boston,  they 
voted  to  hold  the  approaching  "  Court  of  Elections  "  not  at  that  town  as 
usual,  but  at  Newtown.  When  that  Court  assembled,  in  May,  "there 
was  great  danger  of  tumult"  ; l  but  the  orthodox  faction  finally  elected 
Winthrop  over  Vane,  and  even  dropped  three  magistrates  of  the  other 
party  off  the  Board  of  Assistants.  To  prevent  the  minority  from  receiv- 
ing expected  reinforcements  from  England,  they  then  decreed  that  new- 
comers should  not  settle  in  the  colony,  nor  even  tarry  there  more  than 
three  weeks,  without  permission  from  the  government.2 

In  the  following  summer  a  synod  of  clergy  solemnly  condemned  the 
Hutchinson  and  Wheelwright  heresies.  Winthrop  regarded  the  dissen- 
tients as  "clearly  confuted  and  confounded"  ;  but  they  refused  to  be 
silenced  ;  and  at  the  General  Court  in  November  the  majority,  "  finding 

confessed,  "  Except  men  of  good  understanding,  few  could  see  where  the  dif- 
ferences were ;  and  indeed  they  seemed  so  small  as  (if  men's  affections  had 
not  been  formerly  alienated  .  .  .)  they  might  easily  have  come  to  a  reconcili- 
ation." 

1  "Those  of  that  side  [the  Hutchinsonians]  grew  into  fierce  speeches,  and 
some  laid  hands  on  others ;  but,  seeing  themselves  too  weak,  they  grew  quiet." 

With  naive  candor,  Winthrop  tells  an  incident  which  shows  the  unscrupu- 
lous determination  of  his  party  to  seize  advantage.  "  Boston,  having  de- 
ferred to  choose  deputies  till  the  election  was  passed  [i.e.  the  election  of 
governor  and  magistrates]  went  home  that  night,  and  the  next  morning  they 
sent  Mr.  Vane,  the  late  governor,  and  [the  other  discarded  magistrates]  for 
their  deputies.  But  the  Court,  being  grieved  at  it,  found  a  means  to  send 
them  home  again ;  for  two  of  the  freemen  of  Boston  had  no  notice  of  the 
election.  [Winthrop  and  one  other  had  remained  at  Newtown  and  so  had  not 
been  formally  notified  of  the  town  meeting.]  So  they  went  all  home  again, 
and  the  next  morning  they  returned  the  same  gentlemen  again  upon  a  new 
election  [Winthrop  being  notified  this  time];  and  the  Court  not  finding  how 
they  might  reject  them,  they  were  admitted." 

2  No  idle  provision.  A  brother  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson  soon  arrived,  with 
many  friends ;  but  Winthrop  forbade  them  to  remain. 


108  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  TO   1660 

that  two  so  opposite  parties  could  not  contain  in  the  same  body  without 
hazard  of  ruin  to  the  whole,"  determined  to  crush  their  opponents.  The 
two  leaders  were  banished  after  a  farcical  trial ;  and  "  a  fair  opportunity  " 
for  destroying  their  party  was  discovered  in  the  petition,  now  some  nine 
months  old,  regarding  Wheelwright.  The  three  Boston  deputies,  because 
they  had  "agreed  to  the  petition,"  were  expelled  from  the  Court  and 
banished  from  the  colony  ;  six  other  leading  citizens  were  disfranchised ; 
and  the  remaining  signers,  seventy-six  in  number,  were  disarmed.1  At 
the  same  time  the  arsenal  of  the  colony  was  removed  from  Boston. 

In  this  persecution  the  Massachusetts  Puritans  were  not  behind  their 
age:  they  merely  were  not  in  advance'2  in  this  respect.  In  England 
the  Puritan  Long  Parliament  in  1641,  demanding  reform  in  the  church., 
protested  that  it  did  not  favor  toleration  :  "  We  do  declare  it  is  far  from 
our  purpose  to  let  loose  the  golden  reins  of  discipline  and  government  in 
the  church,  to  leave  private  persons  or  particular  congregations  to  take 
up  what  form  of  divine  service  they  please.  For  we  hold  it  requisite  that 
there  should  be  throughout  the  whole  realm  a  conformity  to  that  order  which  the 
laws  enjoin."  On  the  other  hand,  a  few  far-seeing  men  did  reach  to  loftier 
vision.  In  that  same  year,  Lord  Brooke  wrote  nobly  in  a  treatise  on 
religion:  "The  individual  should  have  liberty.  No  power  on  earth 
should  force  his  practice.  One  that  doubts  with  reason  and  humility 
may  not,  for  aught  I  see,  be  forced  by  violence.  .  .  .  Fire  and  water 
may  be  restrained;  but  light  cannot.    It  will  in  at  every  cranny.     Now  to 

1  Fifty-eight  of  them  lived  in  Boston ;  the  rest,  scattered  in  five  other 
towns.  The  Court  pretended  to  justify  this  insult  by  referring  to  the  excesses 
of  the  Munster  Anabaptists  of  a  century  earlier  (Modern  History,  §  208,  note)  : 
"  Insomuch  as  there  is  just  cause  for  suspition  that  they,  as  others  in  Germany 
in  former  times,  may,  upon  some  revelation,  make  a  suddaine  irruption 
upon  those  that  differ  with  them,"  runs  the  preamble  of  the  disarming  order, 
with  a  sly  dig  at  Mrs.  Hutchinson's  "  revelations." 

And  now  Boston  church  was  brought  back  into  the  fold.  Taking  advantage 
of  the  temporary  absence  of  twelve  more  of  the  leaders  of  the  congregation, 
Cotton  and  Winthrop  succeeded  in  browbeating  the  cowed  and  leaderless 
society  into  excommunicating  Mrs.  Hutchinson.  Says  Winthrop,  after  telling 
the  story:  "At  this  time,  the  good  providence  of  God  so  disposing,  divers 
of  the  congregation  (being  the  chief  men  of  that  party,  her  husband  being 
one)  were  gone  to  Narragansett  to  seek  out  a  new  place  for  plantation."  This 
assumption  of  divine  help  in  a  political  trick  is  the  most  unlovely  sentence 
Winthrop  ever  penned. 

2  See  Source  Book,  Nos.  84-86,  on  this  whole  matter. 


RELIGIOUS  PERSECUTION  109 

stint  it  is  [to-morrow]  to  resist  an  enlightened  and  inflamed  multi- 
tude. .  .  .  Can  we  not  dissent  in  judgment,  but  we  must  also  disagree  in  affec- 
tion?" In  America  Roger  Williams  caught  this  truth  clearly,  and  made 
it  the  foundation  principle  of  his  great  experiment  in  Rhode  Island 
(§  86). 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  suggestions  on  page  43  regarding  use 
of  the  Source  Book  are  particularly  applicable  to  all  the  study  of  Massa- 
chusetts. Secondary  material  should  include  at  least  Channing's  History 
of  the  United  States,  I,  322-437.  The  most  careful  constitutional  study 
is  Osgood's  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.  An  anti- 
Puritan  viewpoint  may  be  found  in  Brooks  Adams'  Emancipation 
of  Massachusetts.  Eggleston's  Beginners  of  a  Nation  has  admirable 
treatments  of  the  Williams  and  the  Hutchinson  episodes.  Twichell's 
John  Winthrop,  Straus'  Boyer  Williams,  and  Walker's  Thomas  Hooker 
are  excellent  brief  biographies  ;  and  interesting  material  will  be  found  in 
Alice  Morse  Earle's  Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England. 

• 

t/^%.<        IV-     OTHER   NEW   ENGLAND   COLONIES 

JJ  By  1640,  when  the  great  migration  came  to  an  end 
(§  60),  there  were  five  colonies  in  New  England  besides  Plym- 
outh and  Massachusetts.  English  proprietors  had  founded 
fishing  stations  on  the  coasts  of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire, 
and  these  settlements  had  been  reinforced  and  Puritanized  by 
Hutchinson  sympathizers  from  Massachusetts.1  The  New 
Haven  group  of  towns  began  with  a  Puritan  migration  from 
England  in  1638.  This  colony  closely  resembled  Massachu- 
setts; but  it  had  in  its  make-up  something  more  of  an  Old- 
Testament  commonwealth,  and  something  less  of  aristocracy. 

The  two  remaining  colonies,  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut, 
represented  new  ideals  and  played  new  parts  in  history.  Each 
ivas  born  of  rebellion  against  one  part  of  the  Massachusetts  ideal  : 
Rhode  Island,  against  theocracy  ;  Connecticut,  against  aristocracy. 
In  the  long  run  the  great  Massachusetts  plan  broke  down  ; 
while  these  two  little  protesting  colonies  laid  broad  and  deep 

1  Soon  after  1640,  both  these  colonies  came  for  a  time  under  Massachusetts 
jurisdiction.  Both  were  democratic  in  society.  Seethe  interesting  "Exeter 
Agreement"  in  Source  Book,  No.  46,  addendum. 


110  RHODE   ISLAND   TO  1663 

the  foundations  of  America.  Roger  Williams  in  Rhode  Island 
was  the  apostle  of  modern  religions  liberty ;  and  Thomas  Hooker 
in  Connecticut  was  the  apostle  of  modern  democracy. 

A.    Rhode  Island 

86.  Williams  founded  the  town  of  Providence  in  the  spring 
of  1636  (§84).  From  the  Indians  he  bought  a  tract  of  land, 
and  deeded  it  in  joint  ownership  to  twelve  companions  "  and 
to  such  others  as  the  major  part  of  us  shall  admit  into  the 
same  fellowship."  Later  comers,  during  the  summer,  signed 
an  agreement  to  submit  themselves  "  only  in  civil  things,'7  to 
orders  made  for  the  public  good  by  the  town  fellowship,  —  in 
which  they  are  freely  granted  an  equal  voice.  "  Civil "  m 
this  passage  is  used  in  its  common  English  sense  in  that  day, 
as  opposed  to  "ecclesiastical."  The  point  to  the  agreement 
is  that  the  people  did  not  purpose  to  submit  to  interference 
in  religious  matters  by  the  government. 

No  opportunity  was  lost  to  assert  this  doctrine.  Tn  i\  yU 
Williams  secured  from  the  Long  Parliament  a  "Patent" 
authorizing  the  Rhode  Island  settlements  to  rule  themselves 
"by  such  a  form  of  civill  government,"  and  to  make  "such 
civill  laws  and  constitutions  "  "  as  by  the  voluntary  consent  of 
all,  or  the  greater  part  of  them,  they  shall  find  most  suitable  to 
their  estate  and  condition."  Then,  in  1663,  when  the  colony 
received  its  first  royal  charter  (§  98),  the  fundamental  idea  was 
made  yet  more  explicit:  — 

"  Whereas  it  is  much  on  their  hearts,"  says  a  preamble,  quoting  the 
petition  of  the  colonists,  "  to  hold  forth  a  livelie  experiment  that  a  most 
flourishing  civill  state  may  stand  .  .  .  with  a  full  libertie  in  religious  con- 
cernments," accordingly,  "  noe  person  within  the  sayd  colonye,  at  any 
tyme  hereafter,  shall  bee  any  wise  molested,  punished,  disquieted,  or 
called  in  question,  for  any  differences  in  opinione  in  matters  6f  religion, 
and  [i.e.  provided  he]  doe  not  actually  disturb  the  civill  peace."  J 

1  Williams'  opinion  upon  the  possibility  of  maintaining  civil  order  without 
compelling  uniformity  in  religion  is  set  forth  admirably  in  his  figure  of  a  ship, 
where  all,  passengers  and  seamen,  must  obey  the  captain  in  matters  of  naviga- 
tion, though  all  need  not  attend  the  ship's  prayers  (Source  Book,  No.  90). 


RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM  111 

The  practice  of  the  colony  kept  to  the  high  level  of  these 
professions.  During  the  Commonwealth,  Massachusetts  com- 
plained that  Rhode  Island  sheltered  Quakers,  who  then  swarmed 
across  her  borders  to  annoy  her  neighbors.  Williams  disliked 
the  Quakers  heartily ;  but  he  now  replied  that  they  ought  to 
be  punished  only  when  they  had  actually  disturbed  the  peace, 
and  not  merely  for  being  Quakers.  "  We  have  no  law/'  ran 
this  noble  argument,  "  to  punish  any  for  declaring  by  words 
their  minds  concerning  the  ways  and  things  of  God."  Massa- 
chusetts threatened  interference.  The  smaller  colony  appealed 
to  Cromwell,  praying,  —  "  Whatever  fortune  may  befall  us,  let 
us  not  be  compelled  to  exercise  power  over  men's  consciences." 

In  Rhode  Island,  religious  freedom  was  not  a  mere  means  to  timorous 
toleration,  as  in  Maryland  (§42).  The  chief  purpose  of  this  social  "  ex- 
~  periment"  was  to  prove  that  such  freedom  was  compatible  with  orderly  govern- 
ment and  good  morals.  For  a  time  there  was  much  of  turbulence  in  the 
colony.  Providence  became  a  "crank's  paradise,"  "New  England's 
dumping  ground  for  the  disorderly  and  excentric  elements  of  her  popula- 
tion." But  with  clear-eyed  faith  Williams  and  his  friends  persisted, 
and  finally  the  great  experiment  worked  itself  out.1 

^33^  B.    Connecticut  A, 

87.  Democratic  Purpose.  —  Three  Massachusetts  towns  had 
been  especially  prominent  in  the  struggle  against  aristocracy, 
—  Watertown,  Dorchester,  and  Newtown.2  In  1635-1636,  dis- 
satisfied with  their  incomplete  victory,  the  people  of  these 
towns  made  a  new  migration  to  the  Connecticut  valley,  to  try 
their  own  experiment  of  a  democratic  state.3 

1  For  a  partial  surrender  of  this  ideal  later,  see  §  110,  note. 

2  Some  instances  of  Watertown  and  Dorchester  democracy  have  been  given 
(§§63,68,71).  With  regard  to  Newtown,  it  was  said  that  the  people  there 
"  grew  very  jealous  of  their  liberties  "  soon  after  the  arrival  of  their  pastor, 
Hooker,  from  England. 

8  When  the  seceding  towns  enumerated  their  reasons  for  the  migration,  they 
put  emphasis  upon  "  the  strong  bent  of  our  spirits  to  remove."  This  surely 
has  reference  to  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing  regime  in  Massachusetts. 
But  other  motives  had  part  in  the  movement,  — among  them,  a  desire  for  the 


112  CONNECTICUT  TO   1662 

The  inspirer  of  this  movement  was  Thomas  Hooker,  pastor  of 
Newtown.  Hooker  became  to  Connecticut  even  more  than  Cot- 
ton to  Massachusetts.  These  two  great  clerical  leaders  were 
widely  different  in  their  lives  and  feelings.  Cotton  belonged  to 
the  aristocratic  English  gentry.  Hooker's  father  was  a  yeoman. 
He  himself  had  been  a  menial  "  sizar  "  1  at  Cambridge  Univer- 
sity, and  his  wife  had  been  a  ladies'  maid.  By  birth  and  asso- 
ciation, as  well  as  by  conviction,  he  was  a  man  of  the  people.2 
Over  against  the  aristocratic  doctrines  of  the  great  Massachu- 
setts leaders,  Hooker  stated  admirably  the  case  for  democracy. 

When  Winthrop  wrote  to  him  that  democracy  was  "unwarrantable  " 
because  "  the  best  part  is  always  the  least,  and  of  that  best  part  the  wiser 
part  is  always  the  lesser,"  Hooker  replied  :  "  In  matters  .  .  .  that  concern 
the  common  good,  a  general  council  chosen  by  all,  to  transact  business  which 
concerns  all,  I  conceive  .  .  .  most  suitable  to  rule  and  most  safe  for  relief 
of  the  whole."  Winthrop  and  Cotton  taught  that  the  magistrates'  au- 
thority had  some  undefined  divine  sanction  (§63).  Hooker  preached  a 
great  political  sermon  to  teach  that  (1)  "the  foundation  of  authority  is 
laid  in  the  consent  of  the  governed''''  ;  (2)  the  choice  of  magistrates  belongs 
to  the  people  "  ;  and  (3)  "  those  who  have  power  to  appoint  officers,  have 
also  the  right  to  set  bounds  to  their  authority. " 

Democratic  theory  found  here  its  first  clear  expositor  in  America. 
Fiske  calls  Hooker  "  the  father  of  American  democracy."  Alexander 
Johnston  says,  "  It  is  under  the  mighty  preaching  of  Thomas  Hooker  .  .  . 
that  we  draw  the  first  breath  of  that  atmosphere  now  so  familiar  to  us  ; 
the  birthplace  of  American  democracy  is  Hartford." 

JrfO  88.   Constitution   and  Government.  —  For   a   time  the   three 

^r*   Connecticut  towns  kept  their  Massachusetts  names.      Later, 

they  were  known  as  Hartford,  Wethersfield,  and  Windsor.    At 

first  they  recognized  a  vague  authority  in  certain  commissioners 

appointed  over  them  by  Massachusetts  ;  but  each  town  managed 

more  fertile  land  of  the  valley.  The  journey  through  the  forests,  with  women 
and  children,  herds,  and  household  goods,  was  the  first  of  the  overland  pil- 
grimages which  were  to  become  so  characteristic  of  American  life. 

1  This  term  will  be  familiar  to  students  who  know  Tom  Brown  at  Oxford. 

2  Sixty  years  later,  the  gossipy  Cotton  Mather  insinuated  that  Hooker  in- 
stigated the  Connecticut  migration  because  he  was  jealous  of  Cotton's  fame 
in  Massachusetts.  This  seems  to  be  a  wholly  gratuitous  slander,  without  a 
particle  of  evidence  back  of  it,  —  although  many  later  writers  have  repeated  it. 


DEMOCRACY  113 

freely  its  own  local  affairs,  and,  in  1639,  an  independent  central 
government  was  provided  by  a  mass  meeting  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  colony.  This  gathering  adopted  a  set  of  eleven 
"Fundamental  Orders,"  —  "the  first  written  constitution"  in 
the  modern  sense.1  The  document  set  up  a  plan  of  govern- 
ment similar  to  that  which  had  been  worked  out  in  Massachu- 
setts, emphasizing,  however,  all  democratic  features  found 
there  and  adding  a  few  of  its  own.  The  "  supreme  power  of 
the  Commonwealth"  was  placed  in  a  "Generall  Courte"  of 
deputies  and  magistrates.2  The  deputies  were  chosen  by  their 
respective  towns.  The  magistrates  corresponded  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts "Assistants"  or  the  Virginia  "Council."  They  were 
nominated  in  a  way  more  democratic  than  Massachusetts 
had  then  used,  but  which  was  soon  imitated  there  (§  78),  and 
were  elected  at  a  "  Courte  of  Elections,"  for  one  year  only, 
by  papers,  just  as  the  like  officers  in  Massachusetts  had  been 
chosen  since  1635.  The  governor  held  office  for  one  year  only, 
and  he  could  not  serve  two  terms  in  succession.3  He  had  no 
veto,  and  in  two  other  respects  he  lacked  authority  usually  pos- 
sessed by  an  English  executive  :  (1)  the  General  Court  could  not 
be  dissolved  except  by  its  own  vote  ;  and  (2)  it  could  be  elected 
and  brought  together,  on  occasion,  without  the  governor's  sum- 
mons.4 The  right  of  the  General  Court  is  expressly  asserted  to 
"  call  into  question"  magistrate  or  governor,  and  even  (in  modern 
phrase)  to  "recall"  them  during  their  short  term  of  office. 

1  The  document  deserves  study  (Source  Book,  No.  93,  with  comment). 

2  They  sat  in  one  House  until  1098.  The  constitution,  however,  guaranteed 
to  the  deputies  the  right  of  caucusing  by  themselves  (as  had  come  to  pass  in 
Massachusetts),  and  the  power  to  judge  of  their  own  elections. 

3  The  democratic  party  had  tried  in  vain  to  establish  this  rule  by  practice 
in  Massachusetts. 

4  In  Massachusetts,  the  revolutionary  General  Court  of  1634  had  decreed  that 
the  legislature  should  be  dissolved  only  by  its  own  vote ;  but  the  right  of  the 
legislature  to  come  together  without  executive  sanction  was  a  new  thing  in 
all  English  history.  The  revolutionary  Long  Parliament  tried  to  establish 
both  these  democratic  measures  two  years  later  in  England.  Cf.  §  38  for 
Virginia.  This  is  an  early  example  of  the  way  in  which  the  newer,  progressive 
American  communities  have  always  reacted  upon  the  older  communities. 


114  CONFEDERATION  OF  NEW   ENGLAND 

The  franchise  was  never  restricted  to  church  members,  as  in 
Massachusetts.  At  first  it  was  regulated  by  the  towns :  any 
one  whom  a  town  allowed  to  vote  in  town  meeting  could  vote 
also  at  colonial  elections.  In  1659  the  General  Court  set  up 
a  property  qualification :  no  one  could  be  made  a  "  freeman," 
according  to  this  law,  unless  he  were  possessed  of  thirty  pounds' 
worth  of  property,  real  or  personal.  Even  in  democratic  Con- 
necticut this  qualification  stood,  with  slight  change,  until  long 
after  the  American  Revolution;  but  it  was  not  necessary  to 
own  land  in  order  to  vote,  as  in  Virginia  or  Maryland. 

89.  Connecticut  did  not  intend  to  reject  theocracy.  Hooker  be- 
lieved in  a  Bible  commonwealth  as  zealously  as  Cotton  did,  though  he 
understood  his  Bible  differently  on  political  matters.  The  governor  had 
to  be  a  member  of  a  church  ;  the  preamble  of  the  Orders  states  the  first 
purpose  of  the  government  to  be  the  maintaining  of  "  the  discipline  of 
the  churches,  which  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospell  is  now  practiced 
amongst  us"  ;  and  the  code  of  1650  authorizes  the  government  "to  see 
[that]  the  force,  ordinances,  and  rules  of  Christe  bee  observed  in  every 
Church  according  to  his  word."  In  actual  fact,  the  General  Court  did, 
at  times,  place  ministers,  define  their  powers,  and  even  decide  who  should 
be  admitted  to  the  sacraments.  So  far  as  the  old  theocracy  was  weakened 
at  all  in  Connecticut,  that  weakening  came  incidentally,  as  a  result  of 
the  democratic  ideal. 

V.  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  FEDERATION 

90.  Origin.  —  The  New  England  colonies  had  hardly  estab- 
lished themselves  in  the  wilderness  before  they  began  a 
movement  toward  federal  union.  The  Connecticut  valley 
was  claimed  by  the  Dutch  of  New  Netherlands.  Moreover,  the 
English  settlers  in  the  valley  found  themselves  at  once  in- 
volved in  war  with  the  Pequods.  Connecticut  felt  keenly  the 
need  of  protection  by  the  other  English  colonies,  and,  in  1637, 
the   leaders   proposed   to   Massachusetts   a   federal  compact.1 

1  Hooker  of  Connecticut  was  present  at  Boston  in  the  synod  of  elders  which 
had  been  called  to  condemn  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  and  it  was  at  this  time  that 
the  proposal  was  made.  A  sort  of  ecclesiastical  union  preceded  the  idea  of 
political  union. 


ORIGIN  AND   CONSTITUTION  115 

For  the  moment  the  negotiations  fell  through  because  of 
States-rights  jealousy.  Much  as  Connecticut  feared  Dutchman 
and  Indian,  she  feared  interference  in  her  own  affairs  hardly 
less,  and  hesitated  to  intrust  any  real  authority  to  a  central 
government.  But,  in  1643,  commissioners  from  Massachu- 
setts, Connecticut,  New  Haven,  and  Plymouth  met  at  Boston, 
and,  after  considerable  deliberation,  organized  the  New  England 
Confederation} 

91.  The  Articles  of  Confederation2  established  "a  firm  and 
perpetual  league."  Each  colony  was  to  keep  its  "  peculiar  juris- 
diction." For  matters  of  common  concern,  there  was  created 
a  congress  of  eight  commissioners,  two  from  each  of  the  con- 
federating colonies,  elected  annually,  with  "  full  power  from 
their  severall  General!  Courtes  respectively "  to  determine 
upon  war  or  peace,  divide  spoils,  admit  new  confederates,  and 
manage  "all  things  of  like  nature,  which  are  the  proper  con- 
comitants or  consequents  of  such  a  Confederation  for  amity, 
offence,  and  defence,  not  intermedlinq  with  the  Government  of 
any  of  the  Jurisdictions,  ivhich  .  .  .  is  reserved  entirely  to  them- 
selves" The  vote  of  six  commissioners  was  to  be  final  in  all 
matters ;  but  if  in  any  case  six  could  not  agree,  then  the  mat- 
ter was  to  be  referred  to  the  several  colonial  "  Courts "  for 
negotiation  between  them.  Special  provision  was  made  for 
the  surrender  of  fugitive  criminals    or    "  servants "    escaping 

1  Rhode  Island  and  the  New  Hampshire  towns  asked  in  vain  for  admission 
to  the  union.  The  leaders  of  Massachusetts  were  wont  to  refer  to  Rhode  Island 
as  "  that  sewer  "  ;  and  regarding  the  exclusion  of  New  Hampshire,  Winthrop 
wrote :  "  They  ran  a  different  course  from  us,  both  in  their  ministry  and  civil 
administration  .  . .  for  they  .  .  .  had  made  a  tailor  their  mayor  and  had  enter- 
tained one  Hull,  an  excommunicated  person,  and  very  contentious,  to  be  their 
minister." 

2  This  document  should  be  studied  (Source  Book,  No.  94).  The  date  sug- 
gests an  important  relation  between  English  and  American  history.  The 
union  of  the  colonies  without  sanction  from  England  was  really  a  serious 
defiance  of  authority.  The  United  States  would  not  permit  such  a  sub- 
ordinate union  between  a  group  of  the  States  to-day.  But  war  had  just 
broken  out  in  England  between  King  Charles  and  the  Puritans.  Accordingly, 
the  colonies  could  excuse  themselves  (as  they  did)  on  the  ground  of  necessity, 
since  the  home  government  was  temporarily  unable  to  protect  them ;  while 


116  CONFEDERATION  OF  NEW   ENGLAND 

from  one  colony  to  another,  and  for  arbitration  of  differences 
that  might  arise  between  any  two  colonies  of  the  union. 

92.  Nullification.  —  This  document  compares  well  with  the 
constitution  of  any  earlier  confederation  in  history.  Its  weak 
points  were  common  to  all  previous  unions.  In  practice,  the 
great  difficulty  arose  from  the  fact  that  one  of  the  confederates 
was  much  larger  than  the  others.  Each  of  the  three  smaller 
colonies  had  about  three  thousand  people :  Massachusetts  alone 
had  fifteen  thousand.  Consequently  she  bore  two  thirds  of 
all  burdens,  while  she  had  only  a  fourth  share  in  the  govern- 
ment. The  Bay  Colony  strove  persistently  to  secure  some 
precedence  in  the  federal  congress,  — Jthe  right  to  preside  or  to 
vote  first,  —  and  in  1648  she  made  an  earnest  demand  for  three 
commissioners.  The  smaller  states  unanimously  resisted  such 
claims. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  Bay  Colony  soon  became  dis- 
satisfied. In  1653  six  of  the  federal  commissioners  voted  a 
levy  of  five  hundred  men  for  war  upon  New  Netherlands. 
Massachusetts,  which  was  to  furnish  most  of  the  men,  felt 
least  interested  in  the  war ;  and  her  General  Court  refused  to 
obey  the  requisition.  In  the  language  of  later  times,  she 
nullified  the  act  of  the  federal  congress.1 

After  this,  the  commissioners  were  plainly  only  an  advisory 
body.  Then  the  absorption  of  New  Haven  by  Connecticut, 
in  1662-1664,  weakened  the  confederation  still  further;  and 
it  finally  disappeared  when  Massachusetts  lost  her  charter  in 
1684  (§§  98-101). 


For  Further  Reading.  —  See  suggestions  on  page  109.  • 

Exercise.  —  Who  chose  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  colony  in  1629  ? 

___ il f  ; 

really  they  were  influenced  still  more  by  the  fact  that  it  could  not  interfere. 
The  preamble  to  the   Articles  states   all  other  motives   for  the  union  ad-.    / 
mirably,  but,  naturally,  it  omits  this  last  consideration.    This  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  fact  that  official  "  sources"  sometimes  omit  the  most  significant 
matters,  —  which  the  historian  must  read  in,  between  the  lines 
1  Source  Boo k,  Nos.  95,  96. 


NULLIFICATION  BY  MASSACHUSETTS 


117 


in  1631  ?  in  1635  ?  Who  was  the  first  governor  of  the  colony  ?  of  the 
Company  ?  When*was  representative  government  established  in  Massa- 
chusetts ?  After  that  event,  why  were  the  deputies  more  democratic  than 
the  Assistants?  (Four  or  five  distinct  reasons.)  When  did  the  two 
orders  separate  into  two  Houses  ?  What  intermediate  forms  of  organiza- 
tion did  they  try  between  a  one-House  and  a  two-House  plan  ?  While 
they  sat  together,  what  were  the  chief  matters  of  difference  between 
them  ?  How  did  Cotton's  doctrine  that  it  was  wrong  not  to  reelect  a 
magistrate  year  after  year  differ  from  our  modern  idea  of  "civil  service 
reform  "  f  A  man  arrives  in  Boston  in  1635  :  under  what  conditions  and 
by  what  steps  can  he  become  a  "freeman"  ?  By  what  different  devices 
was  a  union  between  church  and  state  maintained  in  Massachusetts  ? 
Give  instances  of  political  influence  by  Massachusetts  ministers.  Distin- 
guish between  the  ideals  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island. 
Distinguish  between  the  id»als  of  Connecticut  and  Plymouth.  What 
powers  have  been  mentioned  as  exercised  in  Massachusetts  which  were 
not  authorized  by  the  charter  of  1629?  Name  four  limitations  upon 
the  usual  power  of  a  colonial  governor  in  the  Connecticut  Fundamental 
Orders.  How  many  of  the  "theme  sentences"  at  the  head  of  chap- 
ters or  divisions  can  you  repeat?  What  other  phrases  or  passages 
in  your  reading  have  you  found  worthy  of  exact  memorizing?  Note 
instances  in  the  history  so  far  of  the  aristocratic  classes  trying  indirectly 
to  regain  power  which  they  had  agreed  to  surrender.  What  distinction 
can  you  make,  for  Massachusetts  history,  between  the  colonial  franchise 
and  the  local  franchise  ?  If  the  class  have  access  to  the  Source  Book, 
let  members  phrase  questions  based  upon  material  found  there  and  not 
covered  in  this  text,  —  especially  as  to  town  government. 

Let  each  member  of  the  class  make  a  list  of  ten  questions  on  New 
England  for  brief  answers  by  others  of  the  class. 


CHAPTER    III 

ENGLISH    AMERICA   FROM    1660    TO    1690 
I.     GENERAL  TENDENCIES 

93.  The  "Restoration"  of  Charles  II  in  England  began  a 
new  era  for  the  English  race  ;  but  the  two  divisions  of  English- 
men on  opposite  sides  of  the  Atlantic  encountered  very  dif- 
ferent fates.  In  England  itself,  the  second  Stuart  period 
(1660-1688)  was  a  time  of  infamy  and  peril.  In  America, 
it  was  singularly  progressive  and  attractive.  For  the  first 
time  the  government  of  the  home  land  took  an  active  part  in 
fostering  the  plantations ;  and  the  separate  colonies  first  began 
to  have  a  common  history. 

Three  great  characteristics  mark  the  period  : 

a.  English  territory  in  America  is  greatly  expanded  and  con- 
solidated. 

b.  The  English  government  establishes  its  first  real  "  colonial 
department"  to  regulate  colonial  affairs  and  to  draw  the  planta- 
tions into  a  closer  dependence  upon  England. 

c.  This  new  attitude  of  the  home  government,  both  in  its 
wise  and  unwise  applications,  stirs  the  colonists  to  a  new  in- 
sistence upon  their  rights  of  self-government. 

Thus  there  develops  an  "  irrepressible  conflict"  between  the  natural  and 
wholesome  English  demand  for  imperial  unity  and  the  even  more  in- 
dispensable American  demand  for  local  freedom.  Of  this  struggle  the 
culminating  and  most  picturesque  episodes  are  Bacon's  Rebellion  in 
Virginia  (§  105)  and  the  Andros  incident  in  New  England  (§  100).  The 
conflict  was  intensified  by  evil  traits  on  both  sides,  —  by  the  personal 
despotic  inclinations  of  the  sovereign  and  of  some  of  his  chosen  agents 
in  the  colonies,  and  by  pettiness  and  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  colo- 

118 


i 

■ 

■ 


■ 


ENGLISH  AMERICA 
1660-1690 


English  settlement,  1660 

Dutch  settlement.  1660 

Swedish  settlement,  1660 

Limit  of  English  occupation 
in  1690  i 

W 


4- 


SELF-GOVERNMENT  PRESERVED  119 

nists  ;  and  each  party  was  blinded  to  what  was  good  in  the  aims  of  the 
other.  Still,  the  unquenchable  determination  of  the  colonists  to  manage 
their  own  affairs,  even  though  inspired  in  part  by  narrow  prejudice,  is  the 
central  fact  of  the  period.  If  we  characterize  the  period  by  one  phrase, 
we  may  best  call  it  the  era  of  the  struggle  to  preserve  self-government. 

94.  Territorial  Expansion.  —  In  1660  the  English  held  two 
patches  of  coast  on  the  continent  of  North  America;  one, 
about  the  Chesapeake,  the  other,  east  of  the  Hudson.  These 
two  groups  of  settlements  were  separated  by  hundreds  of 
miles  of  wilderness  and  by  Dutch  and  Swedish  possessions. 
Moreover,  for  more  than  twenty  years  no  new  English  colony  had 
been  founded.  Twenty  years  later  the  English  colonies  formed 
an  unbroken  band  from  the  Penobscot  to  the  Savannah.1  To 
the  south  of  Virginia  the  Carolinas  had  been  added  (1663) ; 
to  the  north  of  Maryland  appeared  the  splendid  colony  of 
Pennsylvania  (1681) ;  while  meantime  the  rest  of  the  old 
intermediate  region  had  become  English  by  conquest  (New 
York,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware),  and  all  the  colonies  had 
broadened  their  area  of  settlement  toward  the  interior.  Popu- 
lation rose  from  60,000  in  1660  to  250,000  in  1690. 

95.  A  Colonial  System.  —  This  transformation,  from  isolated 
patches  of  settlement  into  a  continuous  colonial  empire,  brought 
home  to  English  rulers  the  need  of  a  uniform  colonial  policy 
and  of  new  machinery  for  carrying  out  a  policy.  The  colonial 
"  Council "  of  Charles  I  (§  61),  and  a  similar  body  appointed  by 
the  Long  Parliament,  had  exercised  no  real  control.  In  1655 
the  conquest  of  Jamaica  by  Cromwell's  government  called 
forth  from  one  of  his  officials  certain  "  Overtures  touching  a 
Councill  to  bee  erected  for  foraigne  Plantations,"  suggesting 
various  measures  to  make  the  colonies  "  understand  .  .  .  that 
their  Head  and  Centre  is  Heere."  After  the  Restoration  this 
document  seems  to  have  secured  the  approval  of  the  King; 
certainly  much  of  it  is  incorporated  in  the  Instructions  issued 
by  him  for  his  new  "  Councill  appointed  for  Forraigne  Planta- 
tions "  in  1660. 

1  See  map  facing  page  147. 


120  ENGLISH  AMERICA,   1660  TO   1690 

This  body  contained  many  of  the  greatest  men  of  the  time. 
It  was  instructed  to  inform  itself  of  the  state  of  the  planta- 
tions and  of  the  colonial  policies  of  other  countries ;  to  secure 
copies  of  the  colonial  charters  and  of  the  laws  and  regulations 
in  force  under  them ;  and  to  have  a  general  oversight  of  all 
colonial  matters.  In  particular  it  was  to  endeavor  "  that  the 
severall  collonies  bee  drawn  .  .  .  into  a  more  certaine,  civill, 
and  uniform  waie  of  Government  and  distribution  of  publick 
Justice,  in  which  they  are  at  present  scandalously  defective" 

The  creation  of  this  "colonial  department"  marks  the  definite  estab- 
lishment of  a  colonial  policy  which  had  its  roots,  in  nearly  all  respects,  in 
the  Commonwealth  period  and  which  endured  for  a  century  longer.  The 
fact  that  it  remained  so  consistent,  amid  the  many  vicissitudes  of  English 
politics,  "whether  the  ruler  was  called  Oliver  or  Charles  or  William  or 
George,"  suggests  strongly  that  it  grew  out  of  actual  needs.  During  the 
period  now  under  consideration,  the  Council  was  hard-working,  honest, 
and  well-meaning  ;  but  it  was  necessarily  ignorant  of  the  affairs,  and  out 
of  touch  with  the  people,  that  it  was  trying  to  rule. 

Its  three  great  objects  were  :  (1)  greater  uniformity  and  economy  in 
colonial  administration  ;  (2)  more  efficient  military  defense  ;  and  (3)  new 
commercial  regulations,  in  the  interest  of  the  empire  as  a  whole  (§  96). 1 

96.  Navigation  Acts.  —  In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  European  countries  valued  colonies  (1)  as  a  source 
of  goods  not  readily  produced  at  home,  and  (2)  as  a  secure 
market  for  home  manufactures.  Consequently  each  colonizing 
country  adopted  "  navigation  acts  "  to  restrict  the  trade  of  its 
colonies  exclusively  to  itself.  Without  the  prospect  of  such 
restrictions,  it  would  not  have  seemed  worth  while  to  any  one 
to  found  colonies  at  all.  By  modern  standards,  all  these  com- 
mercial systems  were  absurd  and  more  or  less  tyrannical ;  but, 
on  the  commercial  as  on  the  political  side,  the  English  system 
ivas  more  enlightened,  and  far  less  selfish  and  harsh,  than  that  of 
Holland  or  France  or  Spain. 

1  In  1674  the  first  "Council  for  Foreign  Plantations "  was  succeeded  by  the 
"  Lords  of  Trade,"  and  in  1696  by  the  permanent  "  Board  of  Trade  and  Planta- 
tions." The  first  commission,  of  1660,  is  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  99.  See 
also  Nos.  110,  a  and  111,  a  for  work  of  the  Council. 


THE   NAVIGATION  ACTS  121 

At  the  other  end  of  the  scale  was  Spain.1  For  two  hundred  years  all 
commerce  from  Spanish  America  could  pass  to  the  outer  world  only- 
through  Spain,  and  through  only  one  Spanish  port, — first  Seville,  and 
afterward  Cadiz.  Worse  still,  until  1748,  goods  could  be  imported  from 
Europe  through  only  the  one  favored  port  in  Old  Spain,  and,  for  all  the 
wide-lying  New  Spain  in  North  and  South  America,  to  only  two  Ameri- 
can ports,  and  at  special  times.  Two  fleets  sailed  each  year  from 
Spain,  —  one  to  Porto  Bello  on  the  Isthmus,  for  all  the  South  American 
trade  ;  the  other  to  Vera  Cruz  in  Mexico.  All  other  trade,  even  between 
the  separate  Spanish  colonies,  was  prohibited  under  penalty  of  death. 
From  the  most  distant  districts,  — Chile  or  Argentina,  — goods  for  export 
had  to  be  carried  to  Porto  Bello  to  meet  the  annual  fleet.  Then  was  held 
a  forty-days'  fair,  to  exchange  the  European  imports  for  precious  metals, 
tropical  woods,  and  hides. 

By  this  arrangement,  in  many  parts  of  South  America,  the  prices  of 
European  commodities  were  increased  to  five  or  six  times  the  natural 
amount,  while  the  products  with  which  the  colonies  paid  were  robbed  of 
value  by  the  cost  of  transportation.  There  were  no  legal  restrictions 
upon  raising  cattle  in  the  vast  plains  of  the  Argentine,  but  all  natural 
outlets  for  the  products  were  closed  ;  and  when  those  products  had  been 
carried  across  the  continent  to  Peru,  thence  by  sea  to  Panama,  again 
across  the  Isthmus  to  Porto  Bello,  and  (one  chance  a  year)  from  that 
port  to  Seville,  their  value  had  vanished.  In  the  early  years  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  at  Buenos  Aires,  an  ox  was  worth  a  dollar,  and  a 
sheep  three  or  four  cents ;  and  values  had  risen  to  this  point  only  be- 
cause of  a  considerable  contraband  trade  that  had  sprung  up,  in  spite 
of  the  terrible  penalties.  To  go  from  Spain  to  America,  except  to  a 
few  favored  places,  was  not  merely  to  go  into  exile,  but  to  renounce 
civilization.  The  restrictions  on  trade  prevented  the  colonists  from  start- 
ing with  the  achievements  of  European  civilization,  and  drove  them  back, 
in  many  cases,  to  the  barbarism  of  the  natives. 

Compared  with  this  sort  of  thing,  England's  policy  was  modern.  Eng- 
lish statesmen  did  not  aim  consciously  to  benefit  the  home  island  at  the 
expense  of  the  plantations.  They  hoped  to  make  the  parts  of  the  empire 
mutually  helpful.  Their  extreme  intra-imperial  system  of  "  protection  " 
was  designed  to  render  the  empire  as  a  whole  self-supporting  and  eco- 
nomically independent  of  the  rest  of  the  world.2 

1  This  paragraph  is  condensed  from  the  admirable  account  in  Bernard 
Moses'  Establishment  of  Spanish  Rule  in  America,  20-26  and  285-292. 

2  Much  the  same  motives  as  those  which  influenced  Clay  and  Calhoun  in 
establishing  "protection"  in  the  United  States  after  the  War  of  1812  (§  279). 


122  ENGLISH   AMERICA,   1660  TO   1690 

As  a  continuous  system,  this  policy  began  with  the  so-called 
"First  JSTavigation  Act"  of  1660. l  This  law  had  two  purposes. 
The  original  and  main  one  was  semi-military,  to  increase  the 
shipping  of  the  empire.  For  forty  years,  most  European  goods, 
even  most  English  goods,  had  been  carried  to  the  colonies  by 
Dutch  vessels.  England's  navy  had  sunk  low.  But  the  safety 
of  the  island  and  of  her  colonies  rested  upon  command  of  the 
seas.  In  that  day,  commercial  vessels  were  transformed  easily 
into  war  vessels ;  and  to  build  up  a  merchant  marine  was  a 
natural  measure  of  naval  protection.  Accordingly  this  law 
provided  that  all  trade  between  England  and  the  colonies  should 
be  carried  only  in  ships  owned,  and,  for  the  most  part,  manned,  by 
Englishmen  or  colonials.2 

This  part  of  the  Act  was  eminently  successful.  Holland's  carrying 
trade,  and  her  naval  supremacy,  received  a  deadly  blow.  Nor  did  these 
provisions  in  any  way  discriminate  against  the  colonies  in  the  interest  of 
England.  Kather  it  directly  benefited  them,  especially  the  northern  ones. 
Temporarily,  trade  suffered  from  lack  of  ships,  and  from  consequent 
high  freights  ;  but  the  Act  created  the  great  shipbuilding  industry  of 
New  England.  In  less  than  twenty  years  the  colonies  were  selling  ships 
to  England.  *  By  1720  Massachusetts  alone  launched  150  ships  a  year, 
and  the  shipbuilders  of  England  were  petitioning  parliament,  in  vain, 
for  protection  against  this  invasion  upon  their  ancient  industry.  The 
carrying  trade  of  the  empire  also  passed  largely  into  the  hands  of  New 
Englanders ;  and  this  trade  was  protected  by  the  English  war  navy,  to 
which  the  colonists  contributed  only  a  few  masts  from  their  forests. 

A  second  part  of  the  law  (added  at  the  last  moment  by 
amendment)  somewhat  restricted  exports.     Certain  enumerated 

1  The  germs  of  the  policy  are  found  in  the  tariff  provisions  of  the  first 
charters  and  in  the  restrictions  on  the  early  Virginia  tobacco  trade ;  and  it 
appears  well  developed  in  a  law  of  the  Long  Parliament  in  1651  (never  en- 
forced) ,  which  was  the  immediate  model  for  the  Act  of  1660. 

2"  .  .  .  ships  which  truly  .  .  .  belong  to  the  people  of  England  or  Ireland 
...  or  are  built  of  and  belonging  to  any  of  the  said  Plantations  or  Terri- 
tories .  .  .  and  whereof  the  master  and  three  fourths  of  the  mariners  at  least 
are  English."  The  word  "English  "  always  included  all  the  subjects  of  the 
English  crown,  and  therefore  the  colonials.  In  this  case  the  word  was  specif- 
ically defined  in  this  sense  by  a  supplemental  Act  two  years  later.  See  Source 
Book  for  both  laws  (No.  100,  a  and  note). 


i 
THE   NAVIGATION  ACTS  123 

articles,  —  sugar,  tobacco,  cotton-wool,  ginger,  fustic  and  other 
dyewoods,  —  were  thereafter  to  be  carried  from  a  colony  only 
to  England  or  another  English  colony.  These  "enumerated 
articles  "  were  all  semi-tropical ;  and  tobacco  was  the  only  one 
produced  for  export  at  that  time  on  the  continent  of  North 
America.  New  England  could  still  send  her  lumber,  furs,  fish, 
oil,  and  rum  to  any  part  of  the  world  —  if  only  they  were  car- 
ried in  her  own  or  English  ships.  For  the  restriction  on  to- 
bacco, too,  England  gave  an  offset.  She  forbade  her  citizens 
to  raise  that  commodity  or  import  it  from  foreign  colonies,  so 
as  to  give  Virginia  and  Maryland  a  monopoly  of  her  market. 

The  import  trade  was  first  restricted  by  the  Navigation  Act 
of  1663.  Thereafter,  it  was  ordered,  all  European  goods  must 
pass  to  the  colonies  only  through  English  ports.  This  act  was 
designed  to  keep  colonial  trade  from  falling  into  the  hands 
of  other  countries.  It  increased  the  profits  of  English  mer- 
chants ;  but,  to  guard  the  colonists  against  paying  double  taxes, 
a  rebate  of  the  English  import  duties  was  allowed  on  all  goods 
reshipped  for  the  colonies.1 

This  was  as  far  as  the  system  went  in  the  Stuart  period,  (i)  The 
subtropical  colonies  could  export  their  products  only  to  England  or  other 
English  colonies  ;  (2)  all  imports  to  the  colonies  must  come  through  Eng- 
land; (3)  all  ships  in  the  colonial  trade  must  be  English  or  colonial.  A 
Massachusetts  ship  could  still  carry  any  product  of  that  colony  to  any 
part  of  the  world,  exchange  for  goods  there,  carry  these  goods  to  England, 
and  then  "  reship  "  them  for  an  American  port,  or  exchange  them  for 
other  European  goods  in  the  English  markets,  to  be  then  carried  to 
America.  Says  Channing  {United  States  of  America,  Cambridge  series, 
32) :  "  It  is  impossible  to  say  whether  the  net  result  of  the  system  .  .  .  was  in 
favor  of  Great  Britain  or  the  colonies.''  Certainly,  whenever  the  restric- 
tions on  the  import  trade  were  seriously  troublesome,  they  were  evaded 
by  smuggling.  In  1700,  it  is  estimated,  one  third  the  trade  of  New  York 
was  of  this  character. 

1  In  16G0  tariff  duties,  both  for  the  colonies  and  for  England,  had  been  im- 
posed on  a  long  list  of  goods.  In  the  colonies,  however,  this  Act  vias  always 
practically  a  dead  letter.  There  was  no  proper  machinery  to  enforce  it  ;  and 
no  serious  attempt  was  made  to  do  so. 


124  NEW  ENGLAND,   1660  TO   1690 

For  Further  Reading .  —  The  best  brief  treatment  of  the  general  phases 
of  this  period  is  Andrews'  Colonial  Self- Government,  3-40.  See  also 
Channing's  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  1-13.  Osgood's  English 
Colonies,  III,  gives  much  material. 

II.     THE  COLONIES   BY   SECTIONS,    1660-1690 
A.   New  England 

97.  Early  Disturbances.  —  At  his  accession,  Charles  II  found 
himself  beset  with  accusations  against  Massachusetts.  In 
1656  Quakers  had  appeared  in  that  colony.  Three,  who  per- 
sisted in  returning  after  banishment,  had  been  hanged,  while 
several  others,  women  among  them,  had  been  flogged  brutally. 
The  Quakers  complained  to  Charles,  and  he  ordered  the  colony 
to  send  all  the  imprisoned  Quakers  to  England  for  trial.  But 
the  men  of  Massachusetts  were  resolved  to  permit  no  appeal 
from  their  own  courts.  They  chose  rather  to  empty  the  jails 
before  the  royal  order  came,  and  temporarily  to  drop  the 
persecution.1  The  King  was  irritated  also  by  learning  that 
Massachusetts  had  usurped  the  right  to  coin  money  (the 
famous  "Pine  Tree  Shillings"),  and  that  two  of  the  "regicide  n 
judges  who  had  passed  sentence  on  his  father  were  sheltered 
in  New  England.  Worst  of  all,  perhaps,  the  Bay  Colony  dis- 
regarded the  Navigation  Acts,  and,  in  1661,  even  adopted  a 
daring  resolution  styling  such  legislation  "  an  infringement  of 
our  rights." 

1  Afterward,  for  a  time,  the  persecution  was  renewed  with  Charles'  approval, 
though  no  more  executions  took  place.  Imprisonments  and  whippings  were 
the  common  fate  of  Quakers  in  England  and  in  all  the  other  colonies  of  that 
time  except  Rhode  Island.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  Quakers  were 
not  the  quiet,  sober  brethren  of  later  times.  Many  of  them  were  half-mad 
fanatics.  "  It  was  a  little  hard,"  says  Lowell,  "  to  know  what  to  do  with  a 
woman  who  persisted  in  interrupting  your  honored  minister  in  his  sermon, 
calling  him  Priest  of  Baal,  and  breaking  empty  bottles  over  his  head  "  (in 
sign  of  his  emptiness).  None  the  less,  the  three  executions  remain  a  bloody 
blot  on  the  fame  of  Massachusetts.  Nowhere  else  was  a  death  penalty  inflicted 
by  law.  It  does  seem  a  little  strained,  however,  to  speak,  as  a  recent  historian 
does,  of  "  wholesale  hangings  "  of  Quakers  in  Massachusetts.  The  Source 
Book,  No.  88,  gives  some  interesting  documents  from  the  Quaker  side. 


LIBERAL  CHARTERS  125 

For  the  moment,  however,  Charles  contented  himself  with 
demanding  (1)  that  an  oath  of  allegiance  be  taken  in  the 
colony ;  (2)  that  the  Episcopalian  service  be  permitted  ;•  and 
(3)  that  the  franchise  be  extended  to  all  men  orthodox  in 
religion  and  "  of  competent  estate."  The  colony  complied-with 
the  first  demand,  ignored  the  second,  and  evaded  the  third. 
An  act  of  General  Court  did  provide  that  a  non-churchmember 
might  be  made  a  freeman,  if  his  orthodoxy  and  good  character 
were  testified  to  by  the  minister  of  his  town  and  if  he  paid  a 
ten-shilling  "  rate  n  (local  tax).  But  the  Puritan  ministers  gave 
few  such  certificates  to  those  outside  their  own  folds,  and  it  is 
doubtful  whether  under  the  existing  system  of  taxation  many 
men  were  called  upon  to  pay  ten  shillings  in  a  single  rate.  At 
all  events,  the  number  of  freemen  did  not  materially  increase. 

98.  New  Liberal  Charters. — Connecticut,  New  Haven,  and 
Rhode  Island  were  all  without  any  lawful  standing  in  England. 
The  people  were  squatters,  and  the  governments  unauthorized. 
Now  that  order  was  restored  in  England,  it  was  plain  that 
something  must  be  done.  All  three  colonies  sent  agents  to 
England  to  secure  royal  charters.  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island  were  successful  almost  beyond  belief.  They  were  left 
with  very  complete  self-government,  to  be  exercised  practically 
as  during  the  preceding  period.  In  neither  colony  did  the 
crown  reserve  the  appointment  of  a  governor  or  of  any  other 
important  official.  This  remarkable  liberality  was  due,  pre- 
sumably, partly  to  the  careless  good  nature  of  Charles  in  the 
early  portion  of  his  reign ;  partly  to  the  general  enthusiasm 
among  English  officials  just  then  for  all  colonial  projects;  and 
partly,  perhaps,  to  a  willingness  to  build  up  other  New  Eng- 
land governments  to  offset  the  stiff-necked  Bay  Colony. 

All  that  the  Massachusetts  charter  had  become  through  its  un- 
sanctioned transfer  to  America  and  the  stress  of  circumstances, — this 
and  more  these  new  charters  were  from  the  first.  They  created  the  body 
of  settlers  a  "corporation  upon  the  place,"  and  sanctioned  advanced 
democratic  organization.  ( Source  Book,  Nos.  97,  98. )  With  good  reason 
they  were  cherished  and  venerated.     At  the  time  of  the  Revolution  they  re- 


126  NEW   ENGLAND,   1660  TO   1690 

ceived  the  name  of  constitutions ;  and  they  continued  in  force  without 
other  alteration,  in  Connecticut  until  1818,  and  in  Rhode  Island  until  1842. 
A  glance  at  the  map  shows  sufficient  reason  why  New  Haven  and 
Connecticut  should  not  both  receive  charters.  The  question  was  which 
should  swallow  the  other.  New  Haven  used  little  diplomacy  in  her 
negotiations  ;]  and  possibly  she  was  too  much  of  the  Massachusetts  type 
to  find  favor  in  any  case.  Her  territory  was  included  in  the  Connecticut 
grant,  and  thus  was  begun  the  process  of  consolidation  which  was  soon  to 
be  tried  on  a  larger  scale. 

99.  Continued  Friction  with  Massachusetts.  —  Church  of  Eng- 
land men  in  Massachusetts  continued  to  complain  that  for 
thirty  years  they  had  been  deprived  of  civil  and  religious 
rights ;  and  in  1664  Charles  sent  commissioners  to  regulate 
affairs  in  New  England.  Receiving  scant  welcome  in  Massa- 
chusetts, they  passed  on  to  the  smaller  colonies  and  to  the 
conquest  of  New  Netherlands  from  the  Dutch,  with  whom 
England  was  now  at  war.  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  and 
Plymouth  recognized  the  authority  of  the  commissioners 
cordially,2  and  permitted  them  to  hear  appeals  from  colonial 
courts. 

This  matter  of  appeals  (§  98)  was  a  chief  point  in  their  in- 
structions. It  was  to  be  the  means  of  enforcing  royal  authority. 
But  upon  their  return  to  Boston,  they  were  completely  thwarted. 
After  some  weeks  of  futile  discussion,  the  commissioners  an- 
nounced a  day  when  they  would  sit  as  a  court  of  appeals.  At 
sunrise  on  that  day,  by  order  of  the  magistrates,  a  crier,  with 
trumpet,  passed  through  the  city,  warning  all  citizens  against 
recognizing  the  court.  No  one  of  the  discontented  ventured  to 
disobey  the  stern  Puritan  government,  and  the  chagrined 
commissioners  returned  to  England,  recommending  the  over- 
throw of  the  Massachusetts  charter. 

1  See  Johnston's  Connecticut  for  material  for  an  interesting  report. 

2  In  New  Hampshire  they  were  hailed  as  deliverers  by  certain  "  petitioners," 
presumably  Episcopalian,  who  complained  of  being  "  kept  under  Massachu- 
setts by  an  usurped  power,  whose  laws  are  derogatory  to  the  laws  of  Eng- 
land. Under  which  power,  five  or  six  of  the  richest  men  of  the  parish  have 
ruled  and  ordered  all  offices,  civil  and  military,  at  their  pleasure,  engrossing 
into  their  own  hands  the  greatest  part  of  the  lands  within  this  plantation." 


THE    RULE   OF  ANDROS  127 

But  the  next  year  the  victorious  Dutch  fleet  was  in  the 
Thames.  Then  came  the  great  London  fire  and  the  plague, 
with  various  political  distractions  for  Charles  at  home.  The 
Colonial  Board  did  repeatedly  order  Massachusetts  to  send  an 
agent  to  England  to  arrange  a  settlement ;  but  the  colony  pro- 
crastinated stubbornly,  and  for  ten  years  with  success.  In  1675, 
however,  the  great  Indian  outbreak,  known  as  King  Philip's 
War,  weakened  Massachusetts.  Just  at  this  time,  King  Charles, 
entering  upon  a  more  despotic  period  at  home,  began  to  act 
more  vigorously  toward  the  colonies  also ; 1  and  in  1684  the 
highest  English  court  declared  the  charter  of  1629  forfeited 
and  void. 

100.  Rule  of  Andros.  —  The  Lords  of  Trade  had  decided  that 
to  have  so  many  independent  governments  "  without  a  more 
immediate  dependence  upon  the  crown  "  was  "  prejudicial  "  to 
England's  interest.  They  drew  up  a  plan  for  the  union  of 
Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  and  the  Maine  and  New  Hampshire 
towns,  under  one  strong  royal  government.  They  would  gladly 
have  included  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  and  so  consolidated 
all  New  England  into  one  province;  but  charters  stood  in  the 
way.  Unlike  Massachusetts,  the  two  smaller  colonies  had 
given  little  excuse  for  legal  proceedings  against  them.  Still, 
writs  of  quo-warranto  were  issued  against  their  charters,  but 
success  in  even  the  Stuart  courts  was  doubtful.  Meantime 
Charles  died ;  and,  with  high-handed  tyranny,  James  II  forced 
the  union.  He  appointed  Sir  Edmund  Andros  governor-general 
of  all  New  England,  and  instructed  him  to  set  aside  the  legal 
governments  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  by  force. 

The  original  plan  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  had  included  one 
elected  legislature  for  consolidated  New  England,  and  a  royal 
governor-general.  The  King  struck  out  the  representative 
element,  leaving  the  government  despotic 2  as  well  as  unified. 

xThe  Source  Book  (No.  110,  a)  gives  Randolph's  report  of  1676. 

2  This  was  done  despite  the  declaration  of  the  attorney-general  in  Engird 
that  the  colonists  had  the  right  "  to  consent  to  such  laws  and  taxes  as  should 
be  made  or  imposed  on  them." 


128  NEW  ENGLAND,   1660  TO   1690 

He  also  once  more  extended  the  territory  to  which  the  plan 
should  apply.  He  was  already  proprietor  of  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  and  these  colonies  were  soon  consolidated  with 
New  England  under  the  rule  of  Andros. 

Andros  was  a  bluff,  hot-tempered  soldier,  but  not  brutal,  nor 
tyrannical  beyond  his  instructions.  He  was  commander  of  the 
soldiery  he  brought  with  him  and  of  the  colonial  militia ;  and, 
with  the  consent  of  an  appointed  council,  he  was  authorized  to 
lay  taxes,  make  laws,  administer  justice,  and  grant  lands. 
His  management  of  military  affairs  was  admirable,  and  the 
colonists  gave  him  scant  credit  for  the  services  he  rendered  in 
protecting  them  against  serious  Indian  danger.  In  other 
matters  it  was  inevitable  that  he  should  clash  violently  with 
the  settlers.  No  one  act  offended  the  Puritans  more  bitterly 
than  his  not  unreasonable  insistence  that  Episcopalian  services 
should  be  held  on  at  least  part  of  each  Sunday  in  one  of  the 
Boston  churches.  Land  titles,  too,  were  a  fruitful  source  of 
irritation.  In  granting  lands  and  recording  titles,  the  colonies 
had  paid  little  attention  to  the  forms  of  English  law  or  to  any 
desirable  precaution  against  future  confusion.1  Andros  and  his 
council  now  provided  for  surveys,  and  compelled  old  holders 
to  take  out  new  deeds,  with  small  fees  for  registration.  They 
treated  all  the  common  lands,  too,  as  crown  land. 

More  serious  to  the  modern  student  seems  the  total  dis- 
appearance of  self-government  and  even  of  civil  rights.  Andros 
ordered  the  old  taxes  to  be  continued.  Some  Massachusetts 
towns  resisted,  notably  Ipswich,  where  a  town  meeting  voted 
that  such  method  of  raising  taxes  "did  infringe  their  liberty  as 
free-born  English  subjects."  The  offenders  were  tried  for  "  se- 
ditious votes  and  writings,'-  not  before  the  usual  courts,  but  by 
a  special  commission.     The  jury  was  packed  and  browbeaten2 


i  Cf .  Source  Book,  No.  89. 

2  The  presiding  judge  bullied  jury  and  defendants,  telling  them  that  "the 
laws  of  England  would  not  follow  them  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  The 
King's  subjects  in  New  England  did  not  differ  much  from  slaves,  and  the  only- 
difference  was  that  they  were  not  bought  and  sold." 


NEW    ENGLAND   AND   WILLIAM   III  129 

into  a  verdict  of  guilty,  and  leading  citizens  who  had  joined  in 
this  opposition  to  tyranny  were  imprisoned  and  ruinously  fined. 

This  period  of  absolute  government  lasted  two  years  and 
a  half.  It  seems  beyond  doubt  that  rebellion  was  prepar- 
ing. Under  ordinary  conditions  a  rising  would  have  been 
put  down  bloodily.  Thanks  to  the  "  Glorious  Revolution  "  of 
1688  in  Old  England,1  the  rising  when  it  came  was  successful 
and  bloodless.  In  April,  1689,  came  the  news  that  James  II 
was  a  fugitive.  The  new  king,  William  of  Orange,  had  issued 
a  "Declaration,"  inviting  all  boroughs  in  England,  and  all 
officials  unjustly  deprived  of  charters  and  positions  by  James, 
to  resume  their  former  powers.  The  colonists  assumed  that 
this  sanctioned  similar  action  by  them  also.  The  people  of 
Boston  and  the  surrounding  towns  rose  at  once,  seized  the  fort 
and  a  war  vessel  in  the  harbor,  imprisoned  Andros,  and  re- 
established the  government  according  to  the  old  charter.  In 
like  manner,  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  revived  their 
former  charter  governments. 

101.  The  Settlement  of  1689-1691.  —  Though  a  constitutional 
monarch,  William  III  would  have  been  glad  to  continue  part 
of  the  Stuart  policy  in  America.  Hewished,  so  far  as  possible, 
to  consolidate  small  jurisdictions  into  large  ones,  and  to  infuse 
vigor  and  unity  into  the  administration  by  keeping  the  executive 
and  judiciary  in  each  colony  dependent  upon  himself.  The 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  charters  stood  in  the  way  of  a 
complete  rearrangement  along  these  lines.  The  King's  legal 
advisers  assured  him  that  those  grants  remained  valid,  since 
the  legal  proceedings  against  them  had  never  been  completed. 
Massachusetts,  however,  did  not  fare  so  well.  Her  charter  had 
been  surrendered,  and  there  was  no  legal  obstacle  to  such  a  re- 
organization there  as  the  King  and  the  Board  of  Trade  desired 
The  colony  strove  strenuously  and  skillfully2  to  obtain  a  re-grant 

1  Modern  History,  §§  249,  250. 

2  To  conciliate  William,  the  promised  reform  in  the  franchise  was  at  last 
made  effective.  The  certificate  of  a  clergyman  as  to  the  applicant's  fitness 
was  not  required,  and  the  taxpaying  qualification  was  reduced  from  ten  shil- 


130  NEW   ENGLAND,   1660  TO   1690 

of  the  original  patent ;  but  the  best  it  could  do  was  to  accept  a 
new  document,  and  the  Charter  of  1691 \  created  a  government 
more  like  that  of  Virginia  than  like  that  of  Connecticut.  Six 
features  of  the  new  charter  may  be  noted. 

a.  The  crown  reserved  the  appointment  of  the  governor,  whose  powers 
were  greatly  augmented. 

b.  The  representative  Assembly  nominated  the  Council,  but  these 
nominations  were  valid  only  after  the  governor's  approval. 

c.  The  governor  could  adjourn  or  dissolve  the  Assembly  at  will,  and  he 
held  an  absolute  veto  upon  all  its  acts.  The  crown  reserved  a  further 
veto  upon  legislation  for  three  years  after  its  passage. 

d.  The  higher  judiciary  were  appointed  by  the  governor  ;  and  appeals 
from  the  colonial  courts  to  the  king  in  council  were  provided  for,  in  cases 
where  the  sum  in  dispute  amounted  to  £300  (cf.  §§  97,  99,  and  110,  note). 

e.  Religious  freedom  for  all  Protestant  sects  was  promised. 

/.  The  franchise  was  placed  upon  a  property  basis.  All  men  owning 
freeholds  of  forty  shillings  annual  value,  or  possessing  forty  pounds  in 
personal  estate,  became  voters. 

The  last  two  provisions  in  great  measure  overthrew  the  old  theocracy; 
the  first  four  to  all  practical  intents  made  Massachusetts  a  royal  prov- 
ince. At  the  same  time,  Maine,  Plymouth,  and  Nova  Scotia  were  included 
in  the  Massachusetts  jurisdiction  ,  and  New  Hampshire  became  a  royal 
province. 

For  Further  Reading  on  New  England  from  1660  to  1690,  excellent 
material  will  be  found  in  Andrews'  Colonial  Self-government  (41-73, 
252-272)  and  in  Channing,  II  (65-79,  156-185).  The  Source  Book  has 
been  referred  to  freely  in  the  footnotes. 

lings  to  four.  Then,  in  a  few  weeks,  909  new  freemen  were  admitted  —  more 
than  in  the  preceding  sixteen  years. 

Notwithstanding  this  sudden  access  of  liberality,  there  were  within  the 
colony  considerable  bodies  of  people  dissatisfied  with  the  Puritan  rule.  Several 
petitions  were  sent  to  the  King  against  the  renewal  of  the  old  charter,  —  one 
with  signatures  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  persons  who  call  themselves  "  Mer- 
chants and  inhabitants  of  Boston."  Nos.  86  and  87  of  the  Source  Book  indi- 
cate the  growth  of  such  dissatisfaction. 

1  Source  Book,  No.  110,  6. 


VIRGINIA  AND   THE   CAVALIERS  131 

B.   Virginia,   1660-1690 > 

102.  'The  "  Cavaliers."  —  During  the  Commonwealth  and  the 
early  years  of  the  Restoration,  Virginia  enjoyed  a  rapid 
growth  and  teeming  prosperity.  When  the  attempts  of  the 
Puritan  Commonwealth  at  constitutional  rule  in  England  gave 
way  to  the  despotism  of  the  sword  under  Cromwell  and  his 
major  generals,2  the  oppressed  royalist  gentry  turned  their 
faces  toward  the  New  World,  —  as  the  oppressed  Puritan  party 
had  done  in  their  hour  of  gloom  a  generation  earlier.  At  the 
Restoration,  Charles  II  did  little  for  the  dispossessed  Cavaliers 
(except  for  a  relatively  small  number  of  courtiers),  and  the 
movement  to  America  received  new  impetus.  Practically  all 
this  emigration  went  to  Virginia.  Between  1650  and  1670, 
the  population  of  that  colony  rose  from  15,000  to  40,000;  and 
more  than  half  of  this  increase  must  have  come  from  immi- 
gration. 

No  other  migration  of  that  century,  except  the  ten-year 
Puritan  movement,  brought  to  American  society  so  valuable  a 
contribution.  It  was  now  that  Virginia  became  the  land  of  the 
Cavaliers.  In  this  period,  there  appeared  in  America  the  an- 
cestors of  our  Revolutionary  Harrisons,  Lees,  Masons,  Madi- 
sons,  Marshalls,  Monroes,  Nelsons,  Nicholases,  Pages,  Peytons, 
Pendletons,  Randolphs,  Wythes,  Washingtons. 

The  party  epithets,  Cavalier  and  Roundhead,  should  not  blind  us  to  the 
intimate  likeness  between  the  gentry  elements  in  Massachusetts  and  Vir- 
ginia. The  "  Cavalier  "  emigrants  were  not  graceless,  riotous  hangers-on 
of  the  court,  slavishly  subservient  to  despotism,  as  jealous  ignorance  has 
sometimes  pictured  them.  They  were  God-fearing,  high-minded  gentle- 
men, who  had  loved  liberty  only  a  degree  less  than  they  had  feared 
anarchy,  —  men  of  the  same  social  stamp  and  habits  of  thought  as  the 
Winthrops,  Dudleys,  and  Humphreys  of  the  Bay  Colony,  and  the  Hamp- 
dens,  Pyms,  and  Eliots  in  England,  with  whom  they  had  stood  shoulder 
to  shoulder  there  for  a  generation  of  constitutional  struggle  before  the 
Civil  War,  and  from  whom  they  separated  at  last  with  mutual  grief  when 
the  great  war  came  to  sunder  friends  and  set  brother  against  brother. 

J  Reread  §§  22-37  before  taking  up  this  division. 
*  Modern  History,  §  248. 


132  VIRGINIA,   1660  TO   1690 

These  country  gentry  fitted  into  the  rural  organization  of  Virginia  as 
natural  leaders,  and  made  there  an  attractive  and  lovable  society,  some- 
what less  active  intellectually  than  the  Puritan  leaders,  less  stimulated 
by  the  friction  of  town  life  and  by  religious  controversy,  less  inclined  to 
mark  out  new  ways  in  state  or  church  ;  but  instinct  with  the  best  tradi- 
tions of  rural  England  in  England's  greatest  century,  —  robust,  dauntless, 
chivalrous,  devout.  The  earlier  migration  to  Virginia  (§  18)  had  given 
that  colony  a  noble  history  ;  but  it  was  this  Cavalier  immigration  of  the 
fifties  and  sixties  which  a  century  later  was  to  produce  Virginia's  splendid 
galaxy  of  Revolutionary  leaders,  and,  a  little  later  still,  to  justify  to  the 
Old  Dominion  her  proud  title,  "  Mother  of  Presidents." 

103.  Political  Reaction.  —  In  1660  a  new  Virginia  Assembly 
was  elected,  in  the  flush  of  enthusiasm  for  the  Restoration. 
Naturally  it  brought  to  the  front  the  hot-heads  and  extremists 
among  the  Cavalier  party.  Berkeley,  moreover,  in  this  second 
term  (cf.  close  of  §  38)  was  an  old  man,  tortured  by  ill  health, 
arrogant,  peevish,  vindictive,  —  an  easy  tool  for  a  ring  of 
greedy  favorites.  His  administration  (1660-1677)  lasted  so 
long,  too,  that  the  Council,  to  an  unusual  degree,  became  de- 
pendent upon  him  instead  of  acting  as  a  check.  The  period, 
accordingly,  was  one  of  misgovernment  and  political  reaction. 

The  governor  and  Council  had  ceased,  of  course,  to  be  elective  (§  37). 
Berkeley  received  a  commission  from  King  Charles  which  he  regarded 
as  superseding  his  election  by  the  Assembly  (§  38)  and  as  freeing  him 
from  the  limitations  that  accompanied  that  election.  According  to  the 
royal  instructions,  he  resumed  the  veto  and  the  ancient  power  of  dissolv- 
ing Assemblies  at  will.  These  changes  restored  the  government  to  the 
conditions  preceding  the  Commonwealth. 

But  this  was  far  from  all.  By  a  new  law  of  1670,  all  non-freeholders 
were  disfranchised  ;  and,  by  a  wholly  arbitrary  stretch  of  authority, 
Berkeley  in  effect  disfranchised  all  voters  for  half  a  generation.  Since 
1628,  Assemblies  had  been  elected  at  least  once  in  two  years.  But  in 
England  the  "Cavalier  Parliament"  of  1660  was  kept  alive  by  King 
Charles  for  eighteen  years  without  a  new  election.  In  Virginia,  Berkeley 
followed  this  example,  keeping  his  "  Cavalier  Assembly  "  of  1660  icithout 
a  new  election  until  1676} 


1  The  franchise  in  Virginia  had  been  exceedingly  liberal.     All  free  white 
males  seem  to  have  had  votes,  —  including  servants,  when  their  terms  had 


POLITICAL  REACTION  133 

The  restrictions  upon  democracy  so  far  described  concern 
the  "  central  government."  In  local  government,  the  loss  was 
even  more  serious.  The  colony  contained  two  kinds  of  smaller 
units,  —  counties  and  parishes.  The  parish  was  not  important 
in  matters  of  government.  In  the  main  it  had  to  do  with 
church  affairs.  Still  (so  close  were  church  and  state),  the 
parish  government  cared  for  the  poor,  punished  drunkenness 
and  other  minor  offenses,  and  had  some  other  functions  that 
now  belong  to  towns.1  Its  government  had  been  democratic: 
it  now  became  oligarchic. 

The  governing  body  of  the  parish  was  the  vestry.  Until  1645  the  ves- 
try meeting  had  been  open  to  all  free  white  males  ("open  vestry1"1).  It 
then  became  representative,  —  a  law  providing  for  the  election  from  time 
to  time  in  each  parish  of  twelve  vestrymen  to  regulate  parish  matters. 
In  1662  a  law  of  Berkeley's  Assembly  turned  the  representative  vestry 
into  the  closed  vestry.  The  position  became  an  office  for  life  ;  and,  when 
a  vacancy  occurred,  it  was  filled,  not  by  popular  election  as  before,  but  by 
the  remaining  vestrymen. 

If  the  parish  was  less  important  than  the  New  England 
town,  the  county  in  Virginia  was  vastly  more  important  than 
the  county  in  New  England.  It  had  charge  of  almost  all  local 
taxation  and  the  expenditure  of  local  funds,  and  it  passed 
"  by-laws  "  of  considerable  importance.2  At  first  these  matters 
were  managed  by  the  county  court,  —  a  meeting  of  all  free 
white  males.  After  the  Restoration,  however,  most  of  these 
powers  were  transferred  from  the  open  court  to  a  Board  of 

expired.  In  1655,  indeed,  a  law  was  passed  restricting  the  right  to  "house- 
holders," but  it  was  repealed  the  next  year  on  the  ground  that  it  was  "  hard 
and  unagreeable  to  reason  that  any  shall  pay  equal  taxes  and  not  have  a 
voice  in  elections."  (Source  Book,  No.  35 ;  cf .  also  No.  105  for  the  law  of  1670.) 
The  law  of  1670  tried  to  justify  itself  by  English  precedent :  "  Whereas  the 
laws  of  England  grant  a  voyce  in  such  election  only  to  such  as  by  their  estates 
.  .  .  have  interest  enough  to  tye  them  to  the  endeavor  of  the  publique 
good  ..."  etc. 

1  See  an  excellent  account  in  Fiske's  Old  Virginia,  II,  97. 

2  In  1632  the  county  became  the  unit  for  the  choice  of  representatives  to 
the  General  Assembly. 


134  VIRGINIA,   1660  TO   1690 

eight  "Justices"  appointed  by  the  governor  from  the  more 
important  landowners  of  each  county.1 

Along  with  this  political  reaction  went  many  other  serious  faults. 
Taxes  were  exorbitant,  and  were  expended  wastef ully.  There  was  much 
unjust  "  class  legislation,"  such  as  the  exemption  of  counselors  and  their 
families  from  taxation.  The  sheriffs  (appointed  by  the  governor  on  the 
advice  of  the  county  justices)  and  other  law  officers  charged  oppres- 
sive fees  for  simple  and  necessary  services.  The  governor  granted 
to  his  favorites  vexatious  trade  monopolies,  which  indirectly  robbed  the 
people. 

104.  Social  and  Economic  Conditions.2  —  The  forty  thousand 
inhabitants  of  1670  included  two  thousand  Negro  slaves  and 
six  thousand  White  bond  servants.  There  were  also  several 
thousand  ex-servants  who  had  not  acquired  land  and  who  re- 
mained as  laborers  on  the  plantations  of  others.  The  rest  of 
the  population  consisted  of  a  few  hundred  large  planters  and  a 
large  body  of  small  planters. 

Discontent  was  chronic  in  the  servant  class,  and  now  the 
small  planters  also  were  restless.  They  were  practically  un- 
represented, and  they  felt  rightly  that  they  were  overtaxed 
and  discriminated  against.  The  navigation  laws  (§  96)  of  the 
mother  country  intensified  their  grievances.  The  lack  of  ves- 
sels to  transport  tobacco  to  the  English  market  was  felt  in 
only  slight  degree  by  the  large  planters,  whose  crops  would  be 
taken  care  of  first ;  but,  for  a  time,  the  small  planter  often 
found  his  entire  crop  left  on  his  hands,  or  (if  he  shipped 
at  all)  his  small  profits  were  eaten  up  by  the  increased 
freights. 

1  This  aristocratic  type  of  local  government  had  already  come  into  force  in 
England,  to  continue  there  until  well  toward  the  close  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Cf.  Modern  History,  §§  538,  540.  Few  Virginia  counties  of  that  time 
contained  more  than  four  parishes,  and  the  Justices  usually  were  also  vestry- 
men. Thus,  in  a  county  of  three  or  four  thousand  people,  only  forty  or  fifty 
men  had  any  legal  control  in  local  government.  The  other  men  still  could 
come  to  the  county  courts  as  spectators,  but  their  political  power  was  limited 
to  casting  a  vote  now  and  then  in  the  election  of  a  new  Assembly. 

2Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  104  (Berkeley's  Report  of  1(571). 


BACON'S  REBELLION  135 

105.  Bacon's  Rebellion  was  an  armed 1  rising  against  "  special 
'privilege"  The  occasion  of  this  remarkable  movement  was 
an  Indian  outbreak  which  Berkeley's  inefficient  government 
permitted  to  run  without  check.  Finally  the  savages  ravaged 
an  outlying  plantation  of  Nathaniel  Bacon,  a  newly  arrived 
energetic  young  planter.  Bacon  raised  troops  and  punished 
the  Indians  terribly  in  two  campaigns.  Berkeley  declared 
the  young  captain  and  his  followers  rebels,  because  no  com- 
mission for  military  action  had  been  given  them.  There 
followed  an  obscure  quarrel  over  a  commission  extorted  from 
the  governor,  recalled,  and  again  secured;  and  this  quarrel 
merged  into  a  civil  war.  From  a  valiant  Indian  fighter,  Bacon 
is  suddenly  transformed  into  a  popular  champion  and  a  demo- 
cratic hero.  Finding  arms  in  their  hands,  he  and  his  party 
tried  to  use  them  for  social  and  political  reform.  The  funda- 
mental cause  of  the  rebellion  was  not  disgust  at  the  inefficiency 
of  the  government  against  the  Indians,  but  social  discontent. 

Berkeley  was  deserted.  During  much  of  the  struggle,  he 
could  hardly  muster  a  corporal's  guard.  The  aristocracy,  how- 
ever, did  not  join  Bacon.  They  were  too  much  opposed  to 
rebellion,  and  too  jealous  toward  the  democratic  features  of 
the  movement;  so  they  simply  held  aloof  from  either  side. 
But  Bacon  was  supported  by  the  great  body  of  small 
planters. 

These  honest,  respectable  people  were  villified,  of  course,  especially- 
after  the  failure  of  the  rebellion,  by  aristocratic  contemporaries.  One 
Virginian  gentleman  refers  to  them  as  "  Tag,  rag,  and  bobtail."  Another 
declared  that  Bacon  "seduced  the  Vulgar  and  most  ignorant  People 
(two  thirds  of  each  county  being  of  that  Sorte)  Soe  that  theire  whole 
hearts  and  hopes  were  set  upon  him."  Another  describes  the  rebels  as 
"a  Rabble  of  the  basest  sorte  of  People  whose  condicion  was  such  as  by 
a  chaunge  could  not  admitt  of  worse  .  .  .  not  20  in  the  whole  Route  but 
what  were  Idle  and  will  not  worke,  or  such  whom  Debaucherie  or  Idle 
Husbandry  has  brought  in  Debt  beyond  hopes  or  thought  of  payment." 
Every  democratic  movement  in  history  has  been  similarly  regarded  by 
its  adversaries. 

1  Cf .  §  64,  opening. 


136  VIRGINIA,   1660  TO  1690 

When  the  rebellion  had  just  begun,  the  popular  clamor 
forced  the  governor  to  dissolve  his  fossilized  Assembly.  In 
the  election  of  a  new  one,  the  restrictions  upon  the  franchise 
were  largely  ignored.1  This  body  is  known  as  Bacon's  Assem- 
bly, and  its  admirable  attempts  at  reform  are  called  Bacon's 
Laws.  Representative  vestries,  for  short  terms,  and  manhood 
suffrage  were  restored ;  a  representative  Board  was  established 
in  each  county  to  act  with  the  Justices  in  all  matters  of 
taxation  and  local  legislation ;  the  exemptions  of  the  privileged 
families  were  abolished ;  fees  were  strictly  regulated ;  and 
various  minor  abuses  corrected.  This  legislation  shows  why 
Bacon's  party  wished  to  seize  power.2 

Bacon  himself  seems,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  have  had  little 
to  do  directly  with  the  Assembly,  but  he  stood  for  an  even 
more  democratic  program.  Soon  after  the  meeting  of  the 
Assembly  he  held  a  convention  of  his  party  at  "the  Middle 
Plantation,"  and  there  issued  a  proclamation  in  the  name  of 
"  the  Commons  of  Virginia,"  signing  it  "  Nath  Bacon,  Gen'l  By 
the  Consent  of  the  People."  This  document3  denounced  the 
group  of  Berkeley's  favorites  as  "sponges"  that  had  sucked 
up  the  public  treasure  and  as  "juggling  parasites,"  and  declared 
all  who  sheltered  them  to  be  "traitors  to  the  people." 

While  Bacon  was  still  in  full  tide  of  success,  a  sudden  fever 
carried  him  off  —  and  the  Rebellion  collapsed,  for  want  of  a 
leader.  Berkeley  took  a  shameful  vengeance,  until  removed  by 
the  disgusted  king. 

106.  Aristocratic  Reorganization.  —  There  followed  a  series  of  grasp- 
ing or  inefficient  governors  during  the  rest  of  the  Stuart  rule,  with 
constant  friction  between  them  and  the  colonists.     At  the  king's  direc- 

1  One  peevish  gentleman  declared,  "  Such  was  the  prevalency  of  Bacon's 
Party  that  they  chose,  instead  of  Freeholders,  Free  men  that  had  but  lately 
crept  out  of  the  condition  of  Servants  (which  were  never  before  Eligible)  for 
theire  Burgesses,  and  such  as  were  eminent  abettors  to  Bacon,— and  for 
faction  and  ignorance  fitt  Representatives  of  them  that  chose  them." 

2  See  Source  Book,  No.  106,  for  these  laws.  Cf .  also  No.  108  for  explana- 
tions by  the  counties  after  the  Rebellion  had  been  crushed. 

s  Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  107. 


ARISTOCRATIC  ORGANIZATION  137 

tion,  the  Assembly  declared  void  all  of  the  reforms  in  Bacon's  laws 
{Source  Book,  No.  109).  The  minor  ones  were  reenacted  by  subsequent 
Assemblies  ;  but  the  limitation  of  the  franchise  to  freeholders  and  the  closed 
vestry  became  permanent  features  of  Virginian  life.  This  aristocratic  or- 
ganization in  politics,  and  especially  in  local  government,  was  to  continue 
for  two  centuries. 

At  the  close  of  the  Stuart  period,  representative  government  won  a 
significant  victory.  In  1686  Governor  Effingham  tried  to  make  the 
Burgesses  consent  to  the  levy  of  taxes  by  governor  and  Council.  This 
demand  was  resisted  in  a  stormy  session,  during  which  the  Burgesses 
even  denied  the  governor's  veto  power  and  "  boldly  disputed  the  king's 
authority."  The  next  year  King  James  approved  the  governor's  position. 
But  the  Assembly  still  resisted  ;  and  its  right  to  control  taxation  was 
promptly  confirmed  by  William  III  after  the  English  Revolution. 

107.  Excursus  on  the  Franchise.  —  In  spite  of  the  restriction  of  the 
franchise  to  freeholders,  a  large  part  of  the  population  took  part  in  elec- 
tions, when  there  were  any  elections.  There  was  none  of  the  voting  upon 
the  many  questions  of  local  government,  with  general  discussion,  that 
marked  the  New  England  town  ;  nor  was  there  the  frequent  choice  of  the 
many  local  officials  that  characterized  New  England  politics.  But,  all  the 
more,  perhaps,  the  poorer  Virginian  was  inclined  to  use  his  one  political 
power,  —  that  of  voting  once  a  year  or  once  in  two  years  for  a  member  of 
the  Assembly.  The  elections  took  place  at  the  county  courts,  which  be- 
came social  gatherings  also,  with  games  and  feasting ;  and  the  speech- 
making  on  such  occasions  by  rival  candidates  afforded  no  mean  political 
training.  Statistics  seem  to  prove  that  a  larger  portion  of  the  free  white 
population  voted  in  Virginia,  through  most  of  the  colonial  period,  than  in 
New  England,  though  upon  a  much  smaller  range  of  matters  and  much 
less  often. 

Indeed,  after  a  few  years,  the  limitation  to  freeholders  was  for  a  time 
generally  evaded.  Large  landowners  deeded  small  tracts  of  land  to  their 
hangers-on,  —  one  or  two  acres  of  wild  land  to  a  man,  —  so  as  to  make 
them  "freeholders"  within  the  letter  of  the  law.  There  was  no  true 
democracy  in  this  arrangement,  of  course.  It  merely  intensified  the 
aristocratic  character  of  Virginian  politics,  and  helped  limit  political 
struggles  to  the  families  with  the  largest  following  of  clients.  The 
abuse  was  so  marked  that  in  1736  the  term  "  freeholder"  in  the  franchise 
law  was  defined  to  mean  the  owner  of  one  hundred  acres  of  wild  land,  or 
°f  fifty  acres  of  improved  land,  or  a  house  and  lot  in  town,  the  house  to 
be  not  less  than  twenty-four  feet  square.     Shortly  before  the  American 


138  THE   MIDDLE   COLONIES 

Revolution  these  qualifications  were  cut  down  each  one  half.     In  this 
reduced  form  they  remained  the  law  in  Virginia  until  1830. 

Exercise.  —  Review  §§  75,  76,  on  local  government,  with  §§  103-106. 
A  freeholder  came  of  age  in  1661  in  Virginia  :  how  old  must  he  have 
been  before  he  could  cast  his  first  vote?  (§  103.)  Let  members  of  the 
class  propose  lists  of  questions,  naming  the  parts  of  this  book  or  of  the 
Source  Book  where  answers  may  be  found. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Andrews,  Colonial  Self-Government,  202- 
231  ;  Fiske's  Old  Virginia,  II,  1-130,  174-267  ;  Channing,  II,  82-91. 
The  Source  Book  contains  much  material.  No.  108,  not  referred  to  in 
notes  above,  is  especially  valuable. 

C.   New  Colonies 

(In  the  opinion  of  the  author,  Division  C  should  receive  only  one  reading,  with 
explanation  of  difficult  points.) 

108.  New  York.  —  In  New  Jersey  and  the  Carolinas,  during  this  period, 
the  settlers  waged  a  sturdy  constitutional  struggle  for  self-government, 
frequently  ignoring  or  opposing  the  proprietary  claims.  But,  instructive 
as  the  story  is,  it  cannot  be  told  here.  Some  features  of  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania  history,  however,  demand  attention.- 

While  New  York  was  the  Dutch  New  Netherlands,  there  had  been  two 
distinct  periods  in  its  history.  Until  1626  it  was  a  huge  plantation  (like 
early  Virginia)  under  the  arbitrary  rule  of  the  "Director  General"  and 
his  appointed  Council.  After  1626  this  authority  was  modified  by  the 
presence  of  the  almost  independent  governments  of  the  patroons,  —  great 
landed  proprietors  with  extensive  jurisdiction  over  the  settlers  on  their 
lands.  But  while  the  government  had  lost  in  efficiency  and  unity,  it  had 
not  gained  in  democracy.  Says  Doyle  {English  Colonies,  IV,  3)  :  "  The 
Dutch  settlers  succumbed  to  difficulties  which  the  English  escaped,  because 
the  latter  easily,  almost  spontaneously,  adopted  machinery  which  enabled 
the  popular  voice  to  make  itself  heard  ;  while  the  Dutch  in  like  circum- 
stances were  feeling  for  such  machinery  helplessly  and  blindly." 

The  only  promising  movement  for  self-government  under  Dutch  rule 
came  from  English  immigrants.  Four  English  towns  had  been  estab- 
lished on  Long  Island,  while  it  was  claimed  by  Connecticut.  These 
afterwards  passed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  New  Netherlands.  In  1653  a 
meeting  of  representatives  from  various  parts  of  the  colony  was  held,  to 
demand  from  Director  Stuyvesant  a  measure  of  self-government.  This 
meeting  was  inspired  by  the  English  towns,  and  it  was  dominated  by 


ENGLISH   INFLUENCE   IN  NEW  YORK  139 

their  delegates.  The  "remonstrance"  to  Stuyvesant  was  drawn  in  the 
English  language  ;  the  signatures  are  largely  English  names  ;  and  the 
document  contains  the  democratic  English  phrases  of  that  day.  Stuyve- 
sant, in  explaining  the  matter  to  the  authorities  in  Holland,  wrote :  "  It 
ought  to  be  remembered  that  the  Englishmen,  who  are  the  authors  and 
leaders  in  these  innovations,  enjoy  more  privileges  than  the  Exemptions  of 
New  Netherlands  grant  to  any  Hollander." 

Before  true  representative  government  grew  out  of  this  agitation,  came 
the  English  conquest  of  New  Amsterdam  in  1664.  King  Charles  gave  the 
conquered  province  to  his  brother  James,  Duke  of  York,  for  whom  it  was 
renamed.  The  population  was  mainly  non-English  ;  and,  as  a  conquered 
people,  it  had  no  constitutional  claim  to  political  rights.  Accordingly, 
the  charter  to  James  gave  him  arbitrary  power,  making  no  reference  to 
any  share  by  the  people  in  the  government.  Spite  of  this,  and  of  the 
long  Dutch  precedent,  the  governor,  Nichols,  found  himself  obliged  to 
satisfy  the  Long  Island  towns  by  promising  them  privileges  "equal  to 
those  in  the  New  England  colonies,"  and  it  soon  proved  necessary  to 
introduce  a  representative  Assembly  (1682).  Down  to  the  Revolution, 
however,  the  governor  had  more  extensive  prerogatives  in  New  York  than 
in  any  other  colony. 

109.  Founding  of  Pennsylvania.  —  William  Penn  is  one  of  the  strik- 
ing figures  in  history.  Son  of  a  famous  and  wealthy  admiral,  and  himself 
an  intimate  at  court,  he  risked  his  inheritance,  as  well  as  all  prospect  of 
worldly  promotion,  at  the  call  of  conviction,  in  order  to  join  the  Quakers. 
Happily  for  the  world,  his  material  resources  were  not  taken  from  him 
after  all,  and  he  kept  the  warm  friendship  of  men  so  different  from  him- 
self as  the  royal  brothers,  Charles  and  James.  Through  his  connection 
with  the  Duke  of  York,  Penn  helped  some  Quaker  friends  organize  the 
colony  of  New  Jersey,  and  thereby  became  interested  in  trying  a  "  Holy 
Experiment"  in  a  colony  of  his  own.  The  Council  for  colonial  affairs 
had  already  become  jealous  of  proprietary  grants  ;  but  James  readily  gave 
Penn  the  Swedish  settlements  on  the  Delaware  ;  and,  inasmuch  as  he 
wished  a  still  freer  field  to  work  in,  he  secured  from  King  Charles,  in  con- 
sideration of  a  large  debt  due  him  from  the  crown,  a  grant  of  wild  terri- 
tory west  of  the  Delaware  between   New   York   and   Maryland.1    The 

1  Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  102.  Owing  to  geographical  ignorance,  the  grant 
conflicted  with  those  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  and  especially  with 
those  of  New  York  and  Maryland.  The  adjustment  with  Maryland  was  not 
finally  accomplished  until  1767,  when  Mason  and  Dixon,  two  English  survey- 
ors, ran  the  boundary  line  that  goes  by  their  name. 


140  PENNSYLVANIA,   1681-1701 

charter  of  1680  gave  Penn  the  usual  proprietary  jurisdiction  (§  39)  with 
some  limitations.  Settlers  were  guaranteed  the  right  of  appeal  from 
colonial  courts  to  the  king  in  council,1  and  all  colonial  laws  were  to  be 
subject  to  a  royal  veto.2  The  Quaker  colony  was  required  to  tolerate  the 
established  English  church.  Especial  emphasis  was  placed  upon  obedience 
to  the  navigation  laws ;  and  a  unique  clause  renounced  all  authority  on 
the  part  of  the  crown  to  tax  the  colonists  without  the  consent  of  the 
Assembly  or  of  parliament,  —  an  indirect  recognition  of  the  possibility 
that  parliament  might  tax  the  colony.3 

Pennsylvania  knew  none  of  the  desperate  hardships  that  make  so  large 
a  part  of  the  story  of  the  earlier  colonies.  The  wealthy  Quakers  of  Eng- 
land and  Wales  helped  on  the  enterprise  cordially.  The  Mennonites  (a 
German  sect  somewhat  resembling  Quakers)  poured  in  a  large  and  indus- 
trious immigration.4  There  were  no  Indian  troubles,  thanks  to  Penn's 
wise  and  just  policy  with  the  natives.  Population  increased  rapidly,  and 
material  prosperity  was  unbroken.  By  1700  (when  only  twenty  years 
old)  the  colony  stood  next  to  Virginia  and  Massachusetts  in  wealth  and 
numbers.  Unlike  other  colonies,  except  conquered  New  York,  the  pop- 
ulation was  at  least  half  non-English  from  the  first,  —  Welsh,  German, 
Swedes,  Dutch,  French,  Danes,  and  Finns. 

110.  Democratic  Progress.  —  Penn  took  no  thought  to  extend 
his  own  powers.  His  ideas,  for  the  time,  were  broad  and  noble ; 
but  many  of  his  devices  in  government  did  not  work  smoothly. 
Perhaps  he  gave  too  little  value  to  easy-running  political 
machinery. 

"  The  nations  want  a  precedent  for  a  just  and  righteous  government,1' 
he  wrote. ...    "  The  people  must  rule."    And  again,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend, 

1  The  question  of  appeals  arose  soon  after  the  Restoration  (§§  97,  96).  The 
grant  of  New  York  to  James  in  1664  contained  the  first  charter  provision 
for  such  appeals;  the  Penn  charter  was  the  next  opportunity;  and  the  same 
provision  was  found  in  the  Massachusetts  charter  of  1691  (§  101). 

2  This  restriction  appeared  also  in  the  next  charter  granted  by  the  crown, 
that  of  Massachusetts  in  1691  (§  101). 

3  The  Delaware  settlements  were  not  covered  by  the  charter.  For  them  a 
separate  form  of  government  was  devised,  though  they  belonged  to  the  same 
proprietor. 

4  A  settlement  of  German  Mennonites  voiced  the  first  protest  against 
slavery  in  America  in  1687  :  "  Those  who  steal  or  rob  men,  and  those  who  buy 
or  purchase  them,  —  are  they  not  all  alike  ?  Here  is  liberty  of  conscience  .  .  . 
and  here  ought  to  be  likewise  liberty  of  the  body.  ...  To  bring  men  hither  or 
to  robb  or  sell  them  against  their  will,  we  stand  against." 


DEMOCRATIC  PROGRESS  141 

"I  propose  ...  to  leave  myself  and  successors  no  power  of  doing  mis- 
chief —  that  the  will  of  one  man  may  not  hinder  the  good  of  a  whole  coun- 
try." To  the  expected  settlers  he  proclaimed  (1681),  "You  shall  be 
governed  by  laws  of  your  own  making,  and  live  a  free  and,  if  you  will, 
sober  and  industrious  people.  .  .  .  Any  government  is  free  to  the  people 
under  it,  whatever  be  the  frame,  where  the  laws  rule  and  the  people  are  a 
party  to  those  laws ;  and  more  than  this  is  tyranny,  oligarchy,  or  confu- 
sion. .  .  .     Let  men  be  good,  and  the  government  cannot  be  bad." 

In  1683  Penn  issued  a  charter  to  the  colonists,  —  the  famous 
"  Frame  of  Government."  The  "  freemen  "  (landholders  or 
taxpayers)  were  to  choose  a  "  Council,"  —  one  third  retiring 
each  year/  —  to  prepare  all  laws.  The  proposals  were  to  be 
posted  in  public  places  for  a  month,  and  then  accepted  or 
rejected  (not  discussed  or  amended)  by  a  one-House  "  General 
Assembly"  elected  by  the  freemen.  The  proprietor  reserved 
no  veto  power  (except  upon  amendments  to  this  constitution) 
and  little  more  voice  in  the  government  than  belonged  to  any 
elected  member  of  the  Council. 

But  even  with  a  proprietor  so  unselfish,  and  with  settlers  as 
good  as  Penn's,  the  colony  saw  many  troubled  years  and  much 
bad  government.  In  1684,  Penn  was  called  to  England  to  de- 
fend his  colony  against  the  territorial  claims  of  Lord  Baltimore, 
and  he  delegated  all  his  powers  to  the  Council.  Dissension  of 
the  bitterest  character  broke  out  at  once  between  that  body  and 
successive  Assemblies ;  and  each  of  the  two  bodies  sought  to 
encroach  upon  the  authority  of  the  other,  heedless  of  Penn's 
entreaties  for  peace.  In  the  midst  of  these  troubles,  came  the 
English  Revolution  of  1688.  Penn's  proprietary  rights  were 
taken  from  him  for  a  time,  because  of  his  friendship  with  the 
deposed  James,  and  Pennsylvania  was  governed  by  royal  ap- 
pointees. In  1694,  however,  the  colony  was  restored  to  Penn. 
The  question  at  once  arose  whether  this  act  restored  also  the 
Frame  of  Government.  The  people,  through  the  Assembly, 
forced  the  governor  (appointed  under  royal  rule  and  temporarily 

1  This  is  the  first  example  in  American  or  English  history  of  a  permanent 
political  body  renewed  one  part  at  a  time,  like  our  National  Senate  to-day. 


142  PENNSYLVANIA,   1681-1701 

continued  in  office  by  Penn)  to  agree  to  a  new  and  exceedingly 
radical  constitution.  Penn,  however,  refused  to  sanction  this 
instrument.  In  1699  Penn  returned  to  the  province,  but,  be- 
cause of  attacks  in  England,  was  able  to  remain  only  two  years. 
The  great  event  of  this  period  is  the  adoption  of  a  new  funda- 
mental law,  —  the  Charter  of  1701,  granted  by  Penn  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  colonists. 

This  document  (Source  Book,  103,  b)  remained  the  constitution  of  Penn- 
sylvania until  1776.  Dr.  Channing  calls  it  "  the  most  famous  of  all  colo- 
nial constitutions,  because  it  contained  .  .  .  many  of  the  most  important 
features  of  all  workable  written  constitutions."  The  Council  became  an 
appointive  body,  with  executive  powers  only, — to  assist  the  governor. 
The  governor  was  appointed  by  the  proprietor,  and  had  a  veto  upon  all 
legislation.  The  elected  one-House  Assembly,  however,  had  complete 
control  over  its  own  sittings.  The  charter  fixed  a  date  for  the  annual  meet- 
ing, and  provided  that  the  Assembly  should  be  dissolved  only  by  its  own 
vote.  Freedom  of  conscience  was  guaranteed,  as  in  the  earlier  charters 
from  Penn,  to  all  who  believed  in  "  one  Almighty  God  "  ;  and  political 
power  was  only  restricted  to  those  who  accepted  Christ  as  the  "  Savior 
of  the  World," — a  clause  which  excluded  Jews.1  These  religious  pro- 
visions were  placed  beyond  amendment,  so  far  as  the  wording  of  the 
charter  could  accomplish  such  an  arrangement.  All  other  parts  of  the 
charter  could  be  amended  by  the  joint  action  of  the  proprietor  and  six 
sevenths  of  the  Assembly.  This  was  the  first  written  constitution  to  provide 
a  definite  machinery  for  its  own  amendment. 

For  Further  Reading. — Channing's  History  of  the  United  States, 
II,  94-129,  313-340,  and  Andrews'  Colonial  Self- Government,  75-128, 
162-201. 

Exercise. — Name  ten  dates,  worthy  memorization,  in  the  seventeenth 
century.  Point  out  which  ones  stand  for  some  important  relation  between 
American  and  English  history. 

1  Pennsylvania  was  the  only  colony  in  which  Roman  Catholics  had  political 
rights  in  the  eighteenth  century.     Rhode  Island  disfranchised  them  in  1719. 


CHAPTER   IV 

PROVINCIAL   AMERICA,  1690-1760 
I.     MATERIAL   PROSPERITY 

111.  Population;  Non-English  Immigration  ;  New  Frontiers. — 

Despite  the  frequent  wars,  the  seventy  years  between  the 
English  Revolution  and  the  American  Revolution  (1690-1760) 
were  a  period  of  marvelous  prosperity  for  the  colonies.  The 
older  districts  grew  from  straggling  frontiers  into  rich  and 
powerful  communities  marked  by  self-reliance  and  intense 
local  patriotism.  A  new  colony,  Georgia,  was  added  on  the 
south  (1732),  and  new  frontiers  were  thrown  out  on  the  west. 
Population  rose  sixfold  —  from  250,000  at  the  opening  of  the 
period  (§  94)  to  1,600,000  at  the  close ;  and  large  non-English 
elements  appeared,  especially  in  the  middle  colonies. 

The  most  numerous  of  these  were  the  German  Protestants,  driven  from 
their  homes  in  South  Germany  by  religious  persecution  and  the  wars  of 
Louis  XIV.  This  immigration  began  to  arrive  about  1690.  It  went 
mainly  to  New  York  and  the  Carolinas  and  especially  to  Pennsylvania 
(§  109).  To  the  latter  colony  alone,  more  than  100,000  Germans  came 
between  1700  and  1775.  A  smaller  but  exceedingly  valuable  contribu- 
tion to  American  blood  was  made  by  the  Huguenots,  driven  from  France 
after  1683  by  the  persecution  of  Louis  XIV.1 

112.  The  "  West "  and  the  Scotch-Irish.  —  Another  immigration 
of  this  period  belongs  especially  to  a  new  geographical  section. 
The  first  frontier  in  America  was  the  "tidewater"  region, 
extending  some  fifty  miles  up  the  navigable  streams.  Near 
the  mouth  of  such  rivers,  or  on  the  harbors  along  the  coast, 


1  The  Huguenots  came  mainly  to  the  Carolinas;  but  some  settled  in  New 
England,  New  York,  and  Virginia.  The  names  Paul  Revere,  Peter  Faneuil, 
and  Governor  Bowdoin  suggest  their  services  in  Massachusetts. 

143 


144 


PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,   1690-1763 


arose  the  first  line  of  cities,  —  Boston,  Portsmouth,  Provi- 
dence, New  York,  Philadelphia,  Annapolis,  Charleston.  By 
1660  (that  is,  by  the  end  of  the  first  half  century  of  coloni- 
zation), when  the  first  frontier  had  been  transformed  into 
settled  areas,  a  second  thin  frontier  had  pushed  on  fifty  or  a 
hundred  miles  farther  inland,  to  the  eastern  foothills  of  the 
Appalachians.  Here,  during  the  next  half  century,  at  the  head 
of  navigation  and  on  the  site  of  abundant  water  power, 
appeared  a  second  line  of  towns,  —  Trenton,  Princeton,  Rich- 
mond, Raleigh,  Columbia,  —  while  the  frontier  passed  on  over 

the  mountain  crest. 

So  far,  settlement  had 
been  fairly  continuous. 
Frontier  had  kept  in 
touch  with  settled  area. 
Now,  however,  about 
1700,  when  the  third 
frontier  leaped  the  first 
range  of  mountains,  into 
the  long,  narrow  valleys 
running  north  and  south 
between  the  Alleghenies 
and  the  Blue  Ridge,  it 
left  a  tangled  wilderness 
between  itself  and  civili- 
zation. This  condition 
created  a  new  section- 
alism between  East  and 
West  ;  and  the  tendency 
was  intensified  by  the  further  fact  that  this  third  frontier  (like 
most  of  the  successive  frontiers  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years)  was  made  by  a  new  type  of  American  settler,  the  Pres- 
byterian Scotch-Irish. 

These  were  really  neither  Scotch  nor  Irish  in  blood,  but  Saxon  English. 
For  centuries  their  fathers  had  lived  in  the  Lowlands  of  Scotland  as 
frontiersmen  against  the  Celtic  Scots  of  the  Highlands.     In  the  reigns  of 


Ele — & 


The  Watercourse  Fall  Line. 


MATERIAL  GROWTH  145 

Elizabeth  and  James  they  had  colonized  northeastern  Ireland,  —  fron- 
tiersmen again  against  the  Catholic  and  Celtic  Irish.  But  after  the  English 
Revolution,  the  new  English  navigation  laws  crushed  their  linen  manu- 
factures, —  the  chief  basis  of  their  prosperity  there,  — and  the  English  laws 
against  the  Irish  Catholics  bore  heavily  also  upon  these  Presbyterian  "dis- 
senters" from  the  English  Church.  So,  soon  after  1700,  with  hearts  em- 
bittered toward  England,  they  began  once  more  to  seek  new  homes,  — 
this  time  in  America.  The  volume  of  this  immigration  increased  rapidly, 
and  it  has  been  estimated  that  between  1730  and  1750  it  amounted  to  an 
average  of  12,000  a  year.  In  numbers  and  in  significance,  the  Presby- 
terian English  of  the  West  rank  in  our  nation-making  alongside  the  Epis- 
copalian English  of  Virginia  and  the  Congregational  English  of  New  Eng- 
land.* 

The  Scotch-Irish  came  to  America  mainly  through  the  ports  of  Phjla-. 
delphia  in  the  north  and.  Charleston  in  Ahe  south.  Multitudes  stopped 
in  the  settled  areas  ;  but  a  steady  stream  passed  on  directly  to  the  moun- 
tains and  over  them  to  the  frontiers.  Reaching  the  Appalachian  valleys 
in  the  far  north  and  south,  the  two  currents  drifted  toward  each  other,  un- 
til the  center  of  the  Scotch-Irish  population  was  found  in  the  Shenandoah 
valley  in  western  Virginia  ;  and  thence,  just  before  the  American  Revolu- 
tion, under  leaders  like  Boone  and  Robertson,  they  began  to  break  through 
the  western  wall,  to  make  a  fourth  frontier  at  the  western  foothills  and 
farther  west,  in  what  we  now  call  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  (§§  163-172). 

Unlike  the  areas  east  of  the  mountains,  this  new  frontier  had  its  real 
unity  from  north  to  south.  Politically,  it  is  true,  the  settlers  were  divided 
by  the  old  established  colonial  boundary  lines,  running  east  and  west ; 
but,  from  New  York  to  Georgia,  the  people  of  this  new  West  were  one  in 
race,2  religion,  and  habits  of  life,  —  hard,  dogged  farmers,  reckless  fighters 


1  In  both  Scotland  and  Ireland,  there  had  been,  no  doubt,  some  mixture 
of  blood  ;  but  the  dominant  strain  in  the  "  Scotch-Irish  "  remained  English. 
Non-English  elements  have  played  a  great  part  in  the  making  of  America.  In 
the  colonial  day,  Frenchman,  Dutchman,  German,  gave  us  much  of  our  blood 
and  even  our  thought;  and  later,  Norseman,  German,  Irishman,  and,  last  of 
all,  Slav  and  Latin,  have  made  the  sinew  of  our  national  life.  But  after  all, 
the  forces  that  have  shaped  that  life  have  been  English,  especially  the  three 
English  elements  here  mentioned.  Besides  the  general  services  hinted  at  in  the 
text,  the  Scotch-Irish  have  furnished  many  leaders  to  our  national  life,  —  such 
as  Andrew  Jackson  and  "Stonewall"  Jackson,  Horace  Greeley,  Jefferson 
Davis,  Patrick  Henry,  William  McKinley. 

2  A  New  England  immigration  was  to  come  into  Ohio  and  the  northern 
parts  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  after  the  Revolution  and  in  the  first  part  of  the 
next  century ;  but  the  Scotch-Irish  made  the  great  Middle  West  and  Southwest. 


146  PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,    1690-1763 

and  hunters,  tall  and  sinewy  of  frame,  saturnine,  restless,  dauntless  of 
temper.  Other  immigrants  to  the  New  World  had  forced  themselves  into 
the  wilderness,  for  high  reasons,  with  gallant  resolution,  against  natural  in- 
clination. But  these  men  loved  the  wild  for  itself.  Unorganized  and  un- 
captained,  armed  only  with  ax  and  rifle  (in  the  use  of  which  weapons  they 
have  never  been  equaled),  they  rejoiced  grimly  in  their  task  of  subduing 
a  continent.  First  of  American  colonists  did  they  in  earnest  face  away 
from  the  Old  World,  and  begin  to  look  west  toward  the  glorious  destiny 
of  the  new  continent. 

113.  New  Viewpoints.  —  Thus  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
saw  the  mingling  of  the  elements  of  a  new  nation,  —  young,  strong,  un- 
conscious as  yet  of  its  power.  About  1700,  the  point  of  view  for  the 
study  of  our  history  shifts.  In  the  seventeenth  century,  the  colonists 
were  still  Englishmen  in  outlying  America  ;  in  the  eighteenth,  they  had 
become  colonial  Americans,  still  dependent,  it  is  true,  upon  England. 

To  this  dependence  the  colonies  were  held  partly  by  affection  for  the 
mother  country,  partly  by  mere  custom,  and  mainly  by  the  pressing  need 
of  protection  against  the  French  terror  on  the  north. 

The  three  phases  of  our  history  in  this  period  are  the  material  growth 
just  treated,  the  constitutional  agitation  (§§  115-119),  and  war.  For  the 
first  two  a  somber  background  is  furnished  by  the  third.  The  almost  in- 
cessant war  with  the  French  and  their  dreaded  Red  allies  was  a  condition 
not  for  a  moment  to  be  forgotten  by  a  colonist  who  moved  his  home  in' 
search  of  cheaper  or  better  lands,  or  who  took  part  in  a  contest  between 
an  Assembly  and  royal  governor  over  supplies  or  privileges. 

It.     INTERCOLONIAL   WAR 

114.  From  1689  to  1763, with  slight  pauses  for  breath,  France  and  Eng- 
land wrestled  for  the  splendid  prize  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  To  tell  the 
story  in  detail  is  not  the  province  of  this  volume.  Indeed,  for  the  most 
part,  the  decisive  campaigns  were  fought  on  European  fields.  The  dissen- 
sions between  various  English  colonies,  the  lack  of  a  central  governing 
authority,  and  lack  of  agreement  in  a  given  colony  between  governor  and 
Assembly  many  times  cost  dear,  —  as  did  also  the  blundering  stupidity  of 

Till  about  1850,  they  were  the  typical  American  frontiersmen.  Other  elements 
mingled  with  them,  of  course  ;  but  their  stock  showed  a  marvelous  ability  to 
assimilate  these  other  elements,  —  German,  French,  Welsh,  and  even  the  real 
Irish  and  the  real  Scotch,  when  these  came,  in  small  numbers,  just  before 
the  Revolution. 


1763-1775 


English 

French 

J  Spanish 


NEW  COMMERCIAL  RESTRICTIONS  147 

a  long  series  of  third-class  English  generals  in  America.  But  at  bottom 
the  conflict  was  not  determined  on  the  battlefield.  It  was  a  contest  between 
two  opposing  civilizations ;  and  the  fundamental  weaknesses  of  France  have 
already  been  briefly  suggested.  In  the  closing  chapter  of  the  story,  —  the" 
Great  French  War,  1754-1763,  — the  interest  heightens,  centering  about 
two  heroic  antagonists.  But  England's  command  of  the  seas  made  it 
impossible  for  France  to  send  to  Montcalm  the  supplies  he  pled  for  ;  and 
Wolfe's  victory  at  Quebec  only  showed  to  the  world  that  the  struggle  was 
over.  Far-reaching  causes  had  determined  that  North  America  was  to  be 
English  in  speech  and  institutions  (§§  14-16). 

By  the  final  treaties  England  received  Florida  from  Spain,  and  Canada 
and  the  eastern  half  of  the  Mississippi  valley  from  France.  The  rest  of 
the  valley  France  ceded  to  her  ally,  Spain  ;  and,  except  for  some  West 
Indian  islands,  she  ceased  to  be  an  American  power.  North  America  was 
left  to  the  vigorous  English  commonwealths  and  to  decaying  Spain,  with 
a  dividing  line,  temporarily,  at  the  great  central  river. 


r^ 


III.  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT 


115.  General  Features.  —  From  the  English  Revolution  to 
the  American  Revolution,  constitutional  history  is  dull  and  ob- 
scure. These  seventy  years  have  been  called  "a  forgotten 
half  century."  There  are  no  brilliant  episodes,  no  heroic 
figures,  and  no  new  principles;  but  much  is  done  in  extend- 
ing institutions  already  established  and  in  learning  to  work 
them.  The  central  theme  is  the  continuance  of  that  inevi- 
table conflict  that  appeared  in  the  preceding  period  (§  93,  c). 
Under  the  pressure  of  ceaseless  war,  England  felt,  even  more 
keenly  than  before,  the  need  of  controlling  her  colonies  effec- 
tively; and  the  colonies,  realizing  dimly  their  growing  strength, 
felt  more  and  more  their  right  to  regulate  their  own  affairs. 

The  projects  of  the  English  government  to  extend  its  influ- 
ence in  the  colonies  had  two  phases,  commercial  and  political, 
considered  in  the  next  two  sections. 

A.     New  Navigation  Acts 

116.  Restriction  of  Manufactures. — To  the  "enumerated 
articles  "  to  be  exported  only  through  England  (§  96),  rice  was 
added  in  1706,  and  copper,  naval  stores,  and  beaver  skins  in 


148  PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,   1690-1763 

1722.1  More  important  was  a  new  kind  of  restriction  upon 
American  industry,  —  a  series  of  attempts  to  restrict  or  prohibit 
manufactures.  In  1696,  a  parliament  of  William  III  forbade 
any  colony  to  export,  even  to  England  or  to  another  colony,  any 
ivoolen  manufacture.  In  1732,  came  a  similar  prohibition  as  to 
hats.3  Bad  as  this  was,  the  restrictions  upon  manufacturing  so 
far  were  indirect :  no  colony  had  been  forbidden  to  make  any  article 
for  its  own  consumption.  But  in  1750  (almost  at  the  close  of 
the  period)  .the  erection  or  preservation  of  steel  furnaces 
and  slitting  mills  was  prohibited  altogether.  Unlike  the  un- 
pleasant features  of  the  earlier  commercial  restrictions,  top, 
this  law  could  not  be  evaded.  The  half  dozen  iron  mills  that 
had  appeared  in  the  northern  colonies  were  closed,  and  all 
manufacture  of  iron  ceased,  except  for  nails,  bolts,  and  the 
simpler  household  and  farm  implements,  such  as  in  that  day 
were  turned  out  at  the  village  smithy.3 

It  has  been  claimed,  with  some  force,  that  none  of  this  legislation 
actually  brought  serious  loss  to  the  colonists.  Franklin  argued,  as  late  as 
1760,  that  it  had  not  been  hurtful.  Beaver,  he  said,  were  gone,  and  the 
colonists  had  already  been  obliged  again  to  import  more  hats  than  they 
made  ;  while  other  manufactures,  without  interference  from  England,  had 
failed  time  and  again  to  maintain  themselves  in  competition  with  the 
allurement  of  free  land.  However  this  be,  these  three  English  laws  were 
selfish  and  sinister,  —  the  most  ominous  feature  in  all  American  colonial 
history.     They  must  have  become  bitterly  oppressive  ere  long,  had  the 

!It  was  soon  arranged  that  the  colonists  might  send  rice  directly  to  the 
southern  European  countries,  which  were  the  only  important  customers,  —  so 
that  the  restriction  amounted  to  little  so  far  as  that  article  was  concerned. 
Copper  was  hardly  mined  as  yet.  England  did  not  want  other  countries  to  get 
American  naval  stores,  —  as  a  matter  of  military  protection,  —  but  she  compen- 
sated the  colonies  by  paying  generous  bounties  upon  such  materials  sent  to  her. 

2  Making  hats  from  beaver  skins  had  been  a  prominent  industry  iu  some 
northern  colonies  and  in  Pennsylvania. 

8  Attempts  were  made  to  forbid  even  these  simpler  manufactures,  hut  such 
bills  never  passed  parliament.  It  should  be  noted,  too,  that  the  vicious  act  of 
1750  did  take  off  English  import  duties  on  American  pig  iron  and  bar  iron,  so 
as  to  give  colonial  raw  iron  an  advantage  over  foreign  iron  in  English  markets. 
To  Virginia  and  other  southern  colonies,  where  the  production  of  iron  had 
never  been  carried  beyond  this  stage,  this  law  was  a  positive  benefit. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  CLOSER  CONTROL  149 

colonists  continued  under  English  rule  ;  and  at  the  time  they  deserved 
to  the  full  the  condemnation  visited  upon  them  by  the  great  English 
economist,  Adam  Smith  :  "Those  prohibitions,  perhaps  without  cramp- 
ing the  colonists'  industry  or  restraining  it  from  any  employment  into 
which  it  would  have  gone  of  itself,  are  only  impertinent  badges  of  slavery, 
imposed  upon  them  without  sufficient  reason  by  the  groundless  jealousy  of 
the  manufacturers  of  the  mother  country."  l 

B.    Attempts  at  Closer  Political  Control 

117.    Efforts  to  make  all  Colonies  into  Royal  Provinces.  —  For 

sixty  years  Virginia  was  the  only  royal  province.  In  1685 
New  York  was  added,  to  this  class,  when  its  proprietor  became 
king.  William  III,  at  the  opening  of  his  reign,  made  Massa- 
chusetts practically  a  royal  government  (§  101) ;  and,  by  a 
stretch  of  authority,  he  cut  off  New  Hampshire  from  Massa- 
chusetts jurisdiction  and  gave  it  a  like  form. 

Then  came  a  seizes  of  attempts  at  even  more  rapid  change. 
The  Board  of  Trade  found  in  the  remaining  colonies  many 
just  grounds  for  complaint.  Besides  the  old  offenses  (evasion 
of  navigation  lawrs,  refusals  to  permit  appeals  to  England, 
discrimination  against  the  English  Church,  etc.),  the  Board 
was  annoyed  by  Rhode  Island's  stubborn  persistence  in  a 
shameful  trade  with  pirates,  by  the  refusal  of  Connecticut 
to  recognize  the  authority  of  royal  officers  over  her  militia  in 
war  against  the  French,  and  by  the  absence  in  Pennsylvania 
and   New   Jersey  of  any  militia  whatever   for  the   common 

1  Unhappily  the  colonists  seem  to  have  felt  aggrieved  quite  as  much  by  the 
well-intended,  if  not  always  tactful,  efforts  of  England  to  preserve  American 
forests  from  careless  and  greedy  destruction,  and  to  prevent  the  issue  of  dis- 
honest colonial  paper  money.  Another  source  of  justifiable  irritation,  however, 
was  the  "  Sugar  Act "  of  1733  (Source  Book,  No.  100,  c).  This  Act  placed  duties 
on  sugar  and  molasses  from  "  foreign  plantations  "  so  high  as  to  prevent  the 
colonists  from  getting  these  articles  any  longer  from  the  French  West  Indies, 
if  the  law  had  not  been  rendered  nugatory  by  smuggling.  The  purpose 
of  the  law  was  to  compel  the  colonies  on  the  continent  to  buy  their  sugar 
from  another  English  colony,  Jamaica,  where  the  sugar  planters  were  in 
iinancial  distress,  and  it  did  aim  to  take  from  the  mass  of  American  colonists 
for  the  benefit  of  a  specially  privileged  class.  It  is  said  that  the  law  was 
suggested  by  a  Boston  merchant  who  owned  plantations  in  Jamaica. 


150  PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,   1690-1763 

defense.  Experience  under  the  Stuarts  had  shown  that  writs 
of  quo  warranto  against  colonial  charters  were  not  to  be  de- 
pended upon ;  and  so,  in  1701,  in  a  forceful  paper  the  Board 
recommended  that  the  eight  charter  and  proprietary  govern- 
ments be  "  reunited  "  to  the  crown  by  act  of  parliament. 

A  bill  to  this  effect  was  introduced  and  pushed  vigorously. 
It  passed  two  readings,  with  little  opposition  ;  but  the  hurried 
departure  of  King  William  for  a  campaign  in  Ireland  forced 
a  timely  adjournment  of  parliament.  The  following  year 
another  bill  was  being  prepared,  when  the  death  of  the  King 
forced  a  dissolution.  In  the  next  reign  these  efforts  were  re- 
newed. But  time  had  been  given  for  the  proprietors  in  Eng- 
land and  the  colonial  governments  in  America  to  rally  all 
their  influences,  public  and  secret ;  and  the  movement  came  to 
nothing.1 

The  English  government  then  fell  back  upon  the  early 
policy  of  William  III,  and  attacked  colonial  grants  one  by  one, 
as  occasion  offered.  Before  1730,  by  taking  advantage  of  a 
legal  flaw,  a  serious  disorder,  or  of  the  willingness  of  an  em- 
barrassed proprietor  to  sell,  it  had  extended  the  list  of  royal 
provinces  so  as  to  include  New  Jersey  and  North  and  South  Caro- 
lina. Out  of  the  last  named,  Georgia  was  carved  for  a  pro- 
prietary province  a  little  later;  but  it,  too,  soon  came  under 
a  royal  government. 

The  usual  distinction  between  royal,  proprietary,  and  charter  colonies 
is  not  of  great  consequence.  Down  to  the  Revolution,  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  did  keep  their  right  to  elect  all  branches  of  their  govern- 
ment. Pennsylvania,  not  classed  as  a  charter  colony,  possessed,  through 
its  grant  from  Penn,  the  next  freest  constitution,  in  the  security  of  its 
legislature  from  executive  interruption  (§  no).  Massachusetts,  with  its 
charter,  had  less  valuable  privileges,  and  resembled  a  royal  province  in 
all  practical  respects.  But  the  really  important  thing  about  the  colonial  gov- 
ernments was  their  resemblances.  All  had  representative  Assemblies,  with  no 
small  degree  of  control  over  their  governors  (§  119)  ;  and  all  had  the  pri- 

1  The  report  of  the  Board  of  Trade  is  in  the  Source  Book  (No.  111).  Greene's 
Provincial  America  (58-02)  gives  an  excellent  account. 


I        ^r-~  >-8 


TYPES  OF 

COLONIAL  GOVERNMENTS 
1682 


Proprietary  Governments. 
Royal  Governments. 


ATTEMPTS  AT   CLOSER  CONTROL  151 

vate  rights  of  Englishmen,  —  jury  trial,  free  speech,  freedom  from  arbitrary 
imprisonment,  —  which  were  not  found  in  the  colonies  of  any  other  country 
then  or  for  long  afterward. 

118.  Attempts  at  Closer  Royal  Control.  —  The  next  step  in  the  new 
colonial  policy  was  to  attempt  closer  control  in  several  respects,  even  in 
the  charter  and  proprietary  colonies  :  (1)  to  require  royal  approval  for 
the  appointment  of  proprietary  governors;  (2)  to  place  the  militia  of 
charter  colonies  under  the  command  of  a  neighboring  royal  governor ; l 
(3)  to  set  up  appointed  admiralty  courts,  without  juries,  to  prevent 
evasion  of  the  navigation  acts;  (4)  to  compel  colonial  courts  to  permit 
appeal  to  the  privy  council  in  England  ;  (5)  to  enforce  a  royal  veto 
upon  colonial  legislation ; 2  and  (6)  to  free  royal  and  proprietary  governors 
from  dependence  upon  colonial  Assemblies. 

Even  in  a  royal  province,  the  governor  often  showed  little 
desire  to  carry  out  English  instructions  in  conflict  with  colonial 
views.  Partly,  this  was  because  the  governor,  living  in  close  touch 
with  the  colonists,  was  likely  to  see  their  side  of  the  case;3  but 
more  commonly  it  was  because  his  salary  depended  upon  his  keep- 
ing zip  a  good  understanding  with  the  colonial  legislature.  Every 
governor,  in  the  words  of  a  colonist,  had  "two  Masters,  one 
who  gives  him  his  commission,  and  one  who  gives  him  his 
Pay."  If  the  Assembly  passed  a  bill  distasteful  to  the  home 
government,  the  governor  could  veto  it;  but  the  Assembly 
might  then  cut  down  his  salary,  or  leave  it  altogether  out  of 
the  vote  of  supply,  —  which,  according  to  good  English  custom, 

1  Special  report  on  Connecticut's  resistance  to  Governor  Fletcher  of  New- 
York.    Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  Ill,  d,  for  Fletcher's  aggrieved  letter. 

2 In  theory,  the  King  always  possessed  a  veto,  just  as  in  parliament;  but, 
even  in  Virginia,  so  early  a  royal  colony,  he  rarely  exercised  it  until  after 
Bacon's  Rebellion.  Thereafter,  it  was  expressly  reserved  in  all  colonial 
grants  (as  in  that  to  Penn  and  in  the  Massachusetts  charter  of  1691),  and  the 
right  was  emphasized  in  every  commission  to  a  governor  of  a  royal  province 
(cf.  Source  Book,  No.  112).  True,  a  colonial  law  went  into  effect  pending 
adverse  royal  decision ;  but  the  veto  was  no  mere  form.  Scores  of  important 
statutes  were  disallowed,  sometimes  after  they  had  been  in  force  for  years. 
Fifteen  Massachusetts  laws  of  1(592  were  vetoed  in  1695;  fifty  Pennsylva- 
nia Acts  in  1706;  and,  as  late  as  1754,  eight  statutes  of  North  Carolina, 

8 For  illustrations,  cf.  Berkeley's  Report  (Source  Book,  No.  104). 


152  PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,   1690-1763 

was  always  the  last  business  of  the  session.  To  free  the  governors 
from  this  dependence  upon  the  popular  will,  the  English  gov- 
ernment tried  for  many  years,  but  tried  in  vain,  to  secure  from 
the  Assemblies  a  standing  grant  for  such  salaries.1 

In  1727,  Burnet  became  governor  of  Massachusetts.  His  predecessor, 
because  of  quarrels  with  the  Assembly  over  preservation  of  the  forests,  had 
received  no  salary  for  some  years.  Burnet  at  once  laid  before  the  As- 
sembly his  instructions  to  secure  from  that  body  a  fixed  grant  of  £1000 
a  year.  Refusal  would  be  taken  by  the  King  as  "  a  manifest  mark  of 
undutiful  behavior."  Burnet  was  popular,  as  well  as  able;  and  the 
Assembly  voted  him  not  £1000,  but  £1700,  for  one  year.  The  governor 
indignantly  refused  to  be  "  bribed  "  into  proving  false  to  his  instructions. 
The  Assembly  raised  their  offer,  still  in  vain.  For  three  years  the  struggle 
continued.  Then  Burnet  was  killed  in  an  accident,2  and  the  contest  was 
renewed  with  Governor  Belcher,  —  a  far  less  able  man.  In  want  of 
money,  Belcher  finally  petitioned  the  crown  to  allow  him  to  receive  the 
annual  grant  temporarily,  while  the  question  was  being  settled.  The 
English  government  assented,     Massachusetts  had  won. 

119.  Constitutional  Gains.  —  To  the  credit  of  the  monarchs, 
no  attempt  was  made,  in  this  long  contest,  to  suppress  any  colonial 
Assembly.  Indeed,  while  the  English  government  did  in  some 
respects  extend  its  powers  in  the  colonies,  still  the  Assemblies 
also  made  substantial  gains.  Everywhere  the  elected  Houses 
claimed  the  powers  and  privileges  of  the  English  House  of 
Commons.  Especially  did  they  enlarge  their  control  over 
finances.  After  long  struggles,  they  excluded  the  appointed 
Councils  from  any  authority  over  money  bills ; 3  and  they  passed 

1  For  illustrations,  cf.  Berkeley's  Report  (Source  Book,  No.  104). 

2  The  Assembly  seized  the  chance  to  show  that  it  had  not  been  haggling  to 
save  money.  It  gave  Burnet  a  magnificent  public  funeral,  at  a  cost  of  more 
than  a  thousand  pounds,  and  voted  two  thousand  pounds  to  his  children. 

During  each  of  the  three  years  of  the  struggle,  the  Boston  town  meeting 
stepped  in  to  hold  up  the  hands  of  the  Assembly  (Source  Book,  No.  Ill,  c). 
On  the  third  occasion,  the  town  meeting  bluntly  called  upon  the  Assembly 
"  to  oppose  any  bill  .  .  .'that  may  in  the  least  bear  upon  our  natural  rights 
and  charter  privileges,  which,  we  apperhend,  the  giving  in  to  the  King's 
instructions  would  certainly  do." 

8  Just  as  in  England,  the  appointed  and  hereditary  House  of  Lords  was  no 
longer  permitted  to  amend  or  reject  bills  of  supply. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GAINS  153 

beyond  all  English  precedent  in  the  creation  in  each  colony  of 
a  Treasurer,  elected,  not  by  the  governor,  but  by  the  Assembly} 

The  whole  constitutional  conflict  was  one  of  the  chief  preparations  for 
the  Eevolution ;  and  the  training  secured  by  the  colonists  in  the  struggles 
explains  the  skill  with  which  they  waged  the  long  opposition  to  George  III, 
from  1760  to  1775,  before  the  struggle  became  open  war.  The  English 
historian,  Doyle,  says  of  the  period  1690-1760:  "The  demands  made 
upon  the  colonists,  [and]  the  restrictions  imposed  upon  them,  were  often 
in  perfect  conformity  with  equity  and  reason.  [But]  it  can  seldom  be  said 
that  the  method  of  enforcement  [by  England]  was  sympathetic,  or  even  in- 
telligent. .  .  .  The  temper  of  mind,  the  habits  of  thought  and  action, 
which  made  successful  resistance  possible  [at  the  time  of  the  Revolution] 
had  their  origin  in  these  disputes  which  had  kept  alive  an  abiding  spirit 
of  bitterness  and  vindictiveness  between  the  colonists  and  those  set  in 
authority  over  them,  and  had  furnished  the  former  with  continuous  train- 
ing in  the  arts  of  political  conflict.'1'' 

Private  rights,  too,  were  more  clearly  defined  and  extended. 
With  the  approval  of  the  crown  lawyers,  the  doctrine  was  es- 
tablished that  the  Common  Law  of  England,  with  all  its  em- 
phasis on  personal  liberty,  was  also  the  common  law  of  the 
colonies  even  without  express  enactment. 

At  least  one  advance  was  made  in  the  colonies  over  English 
custom  in  the  matter  of  personal  liberty  —  namely,  a  greater 
safety  for  a  free  press.  In  1735,  a  tyrannical  governor  of  New 
York  removed  the  chief  justice  of  the  colony  from  office  for 
personal  reasons.  John  Zenger  in  his  Weekly  Journal  published 
vigorous  criticism  of  this  action,  declaring  that,  if  unchecked, 
it  threatened  slavery  to  the  people.  Zenger  was  prosecuted  for 
criminal  libel.     In  England  at  that  day  such  a  prosecution, 

1  This  step  grew  out  of  an  earlier  practice  of  occasionally  making  the 
Speaker  of  the  Assembly  the  guardian  of  funds  appropriated  for  some  partic- 
ular purpose.  Sometimes  an  Assembly  encroached  upon  the  authority  of  the 
royal  governor  even  further,  by  turning  over  executive  functions  to  commis- 
sions appointed  by  itself.  In  this  appearance  of  new  officers  alongside  the 
governor,  we  have  the  germ  of  the  character  of  our  later  State  executives  in 
America,  —  several  heads  (governor,  auditor,  treasurer,  etc.),  each  independ- 
ent of  the  others.  This  is  by  no  means  the  only  case  where  a  movement  es- 
sential to  liberty  in  one  era  has  burdened  later  times  with  an  unsatisfactory 
heritage. 


154  PROVINCIAL  AMERICA,   1690-1763 

backed  by  the  government,  was  sure  of  success.  In  New  York, 
the  new  chief  justice,  too,  showed  a  determination  to  secure  a 
conviction.  He  tried  to  limit  the  jury's  function  to  deciding 
only  whether  Zenger  was  responsible  for  the  publication  (a 
matter  not  denied),  reserving  to  himself  wholly  the  decision 
whether  the  words  were  punishable.  This  was  the  custom  of 
English  courts  in  such  cases  to  a  much  later  period.1  But 
Zenger's  lawyer  in  a  great  speech  argued  that  public  criticism 
is  a  necessary  safeguard  for  free  government,  and  that,  to  pre- 
vent the  crushing  out  of  a  legitimate  and  needed  criticism,  the 
jury  in  such  a  trial  must  decide  whether  the  words  used  were 
libellous  or  true. 

This  cause,  said  he,  is  "  not  the  Cause  of  a  poor  Printer  alone,  nor  of 
New  York  alone,"  but  of  "every  free  Man  on  the  Main  of  America." 
He  called  upon  the  jury  to  guard  the  liberty  "  to  which  Nature  and  the 
Laws  of  our  Country  have  given  us  the  Right,  —  the  Liberty  of  exposing 
and  opposing  arbitrary  Power  (in  these  parts  of  the  World  at  least)  by 
speaking  and  writing  the  Truth."  "A  free  people,1.''  he  exclaimed  bluntly, 
"  are  not  obliged  by  any  Law  to  support  a  Governor  who  goes  about  to 
destroy  a  Province.'''' 

The  jury  insisted  upon  this  right  to  judge  of  the  law,  as  well 
as  of  the  fact  of  publication,  and  declared  Zenger  "  Not  guilty." 
G-ouverneur  Morris  afterward  styled  this  acquittal  "  the  morn- 
ing star  of  that  liberty  which  subsequently  revolutionized 
America."2 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  plan  of  this  volume  does  not  allow  much 
time  for  library  work  upon  this  chapter.  The  Source  Book,  relatively 
to  the  text,  has  about  the  same  amount  of  material  as  before.  The 
two  best  treatments  available  (outside  of  special  monographs)  are 
Greene's  Provincial  America  (1-80)  and  Channing's  second  volume 
(217-281).  We  lose  the  guidance  of  Osgood  at  the  year  1700,  and  Doyle's 
two  huge  volumes  on  the  eighteenth  century  are  too  bulky  for  secondary 
schools.     Some  special  studies  have  been  referred  to  in  the  notes.     Both 

1  Cf.  Modern  History,  page  544,  note  2. 

2  This  trial  was  one  of  several  at  about  the  same  time.  The  fullest  account 
in  a  general  history  is  in  Channing,  II,  475-489.  Zenger's  own  account,  re- 
sembling a  modern  "  report,"  is  reproduced  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  113. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  GAINS  155 

Channing  and  Greene  give  adequate  treatments  of  the  navigation  acts, 
but  a  further  and  slightly  more  English  view  may  be  found  in  Ashley's 
"  England  and  America,  1660-1760,"  in  his  Historical  Surveys. 

Exercise.  —  Reread  §§93-96,  as  a  summary.  Classify  the  "naviga- 
tion acts  "  under  three  heads,  with  subdivisions.  Why  are  the  restrictions 
on  manufactures  classed  with  navigation  acts  ? 


s*. 


CHAPTER  V 


COLONIAL   LIFE 

120.  "Blue  Laws." — Much  colonial  legislation  goes  under 
the  name  of  Blue  Laws.  The  term  is  used  somewhat  loosely 
to  signify  either  undue  severity  in  punishing  ordinary  crime, 
or  unreasonable  interference  with  personal  liberty.  In  the  first 
sense  (that  of  bloody  laws),  the  colonists  could  not  be  blamed 
by  Europeans  of  their  day.  Everywhere,  life  was  still  harsh 
and  cruel ;  but  American  legislation  was  more  humane  and  ra- 
tional than  that  of  England  or  France.  Many  barbarities  did 
survive,  however.  The  pillory  and  whipping  post  (with  clip- 
ping of  ears)  were  in  universal  use.  As  late  as  1748,  a  Vir- 
ginian law  (Source  Book,  No.  115)  required  every  parish  to 
have  ready  these  instruments,  and  suggested  also  a  ducking 
stool  for  "  brabbling  women."  Prison  life  was  unspeakably 
foul  and  horrible.  Death  was  the  penalty  for  many  deeds  not 
now  considered  capital  crimes  in  any  civilized  land ; *  and 
many  punishments  seem  to  us  ingeniously  repulsive,  such  as 
branding  for  robbery  or  adultery.  If  Hawthorne  had  placed 
the  scene  of  his  Scarlet  Letter  in  Pennsylvania  instead  of 
Massachusetts,  he  would  have  had  to  represent  Hester  wearing 
an  A,  not  on  her  clothing,  but  burned  into  her  forehead. 

1  When  the  colonies  were  growing  up,*there  were  over  fifty  offenses  pun- 
ishable with  death  in  England.  This  number  increased  to  about  two  hundred 
before  the  "sanguinary  chaos"  was  reformed  in  the  nineteenth  century  (cf. 
Modern  History,  §  529,  note) ;  but  not  more  than  eighteen  offenses  were 
ever  "  capital "  in  New  England.  Virginia  ran  the  number  up  to  twenty- 
seven  ;  but  in  large  part  this  was  due  to  her  cruel  slave  laws,  which  were 
rarely  enforced.  Hog  stealing  was  punishable  by  death  in  Virginia  by  a 
statute  of  1643;  but,  to  understand  this  properly,  the  student  must  remember 
the  penalty  inflicted  for  horse  stealing  in  very  modern  times  by  vigilance 
committees  all  over  our  West. 

156 


DECAY  OF  PURITANISM  157 

In  the  second  sense,  —  that  of  inquisitorial  legislation,  — 
New  England  comes  in  for  just  criticism.  Not  that  she  stood 
far  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  world  even  in  that  respect. 
To-day,  as  a  rule,  legislation  aims  to  correct  a  man's  conduct 
only  where  it  directly  affects  other  people ;  but  in  that  day,  as 
for  many  centuries  preceding,  all  over  Christendom  (because 
church  and  state  were  so  connected),  the  state  tried  by  law  to 
regulate  conduct  purely  personal.  In  Virginia,  the  colonial 
law  required  attendance  at  church,  and  forbade  traveling  on 
Sunday.1  In  the  Puritan  colonies  such  legislation  was  more 
minutely  vexing,  —  and  much  more  rigorously  enforced. 

At  the  same  time,  the  most  common  specific  charges  are 
wholly  false.  It  is  still  widely  believed  that  in  Connecticut 
the  law  forbade  a  woman  to  kiss  her  child  on  Sunday;  that  it 
prohibited  playing  on  "  any  instrument  of  music  except  the 
drum,  trumpet,  and  jewsharp " ;  and  that  it  required  "  all 
males "  to  have  their  hair  "  cut  round  according  to  a  cap." 
These  "  laws "  are  merely  the  ingenious  vengeance  of  a  fugi- 
tive Tory  clergyman  (S.  A.  Peters),  who  during  the  Eevolution 
(1781)  published  in  England  a  History  of  Connecticut.  This 
quaint  book  contains  a  list  of  forty-five  "  Blue  Laws."  Some 
are  essentially  correct,  and  most  have  some  basis  in  fact ;  but 
the  "  code  "  is  popularly  known  almost  alone  by  these  malicious 
inventions.2 

121.  Decay  of  Puritanism :  Witchcraft  Delusions.  —  The 
English  historian,  Freeman,  complains  that  students  of  history 
go  wrong  because  they  think  that  "  all  the  Ancients  lived  at 
the  same  time."     It  is  essential  for  us  to  see  the  colonist  of 


1  Cf.  §  29  and  Source  Book,  No.  35. 

2  The  veracity  of  the  Reverend  Mr.  Peters  may  be  judged  from  other  items 
in  his  History.  He  pictures  the  inhabitants  of  a  Connecticut  village  fleeing 
from  their  beds,  mistaking  the  croaking  of  an  "  army  of  thirsty  frogs  "  (on 
their  way  from  one  pond  to  another)  for  the  yells  of  an  attacking  party  of 
French  and  Indians;  and  he  describes  the  rapids  of  the  Connecticut  River 
thus,  —  "  Here  water  is  consolidated  without  frost,  by  pressure,  by  swiftness, 
between  the  pinching,  sturdy  rocks,  to  such  a  degree  of  induration  that  an 
iron  crow  [bar]  floats  smoothly  down  its  current " ! 


158  COLONIAL  LIFE 

1,730  or  1700  as  a  different  creature  from  his  greatgrandfather 
of  1660  or  1630.  Even  in  the  first  century  in  Massachusetts, 
the  three  generations  had  each  its  own  character.  The  first  great 
generation  of  founders  (the  leaders,  at  least)  were  strong, 
genial,  tactful  men,  broadened  by  European  culture  and  by 
wide  experience  in  camp  and  court,  and  preserving  a  fine  dig- 
nity, sometimes  tender  graces  even,  in  their  stern  frontier  lives.1 
"Narrow! "  exclaims  Lowell,  "yes,  they  had  an  edge  to  them." 
Their  Puritanism  was  sometimes  somber,  but  never  petty.  It 
was  like  the  noble  Puritanism  of  Miltou  in  his  youth,  —  the 
splendid  enthusiasm  of  the  "  spacious  Elizabethan  days,"  sobered 
and  uplifted  by  moral  earnestness  and  religious  devotion. 
Winthrop  and  Cotton  and  their  fellows,  who  had  left  ancestral 
manor  houses  to  dwell  in  rude  cabins  for  conscience'  sake, 
lived  an  exalted  poem  day  by  day  in  their  unfaltering  convic- 
tion of  the  Divine  abiding  within  them  and  around  them. 

The  sons  and  grandsons  show  Puritanism  in  the  sere.  True, 
the  necessities  of  frontier  life  made  them  nimble-witted,  in- 
quisitive, pushing,  better  able  than  their  fathers  "  to  find  their 
way  in  the  woods  "  and  to  rear  crops  and  children  under  New 
World  conditions.  But  the  unceasing  struggle  and  petty  priva- 
tions (theirs  not  by  choice  now,  but  by  compulsion),  made  their 
lives  harsh  and  unlovely  and  bitter.  Most  of  the  finer  thought 
and  broad  outlook  of  the  first  generation  fell  away.  Faith  gave 
way  to  formula ;  inspiration  was  replaced  by  tradition  and  cant. 
The  second  generation  lost  the  poetry  out  of  Puritanism;  the 
third  generation  began  to  lose  its  power.  Much  that  is  vital  to 
man  always  remained.  Puritanism  continued  to  teach  the 
supremacy  of  conscience  with  emphasis  never  excelled  in  reli- 
gious movements;  and,  in  its  darkest  period,  sweet  and  gentle 
lives  sometimes  blossomed  out  of  it.  But  toward  1700  it  did 
undergo  a  real  and  great  decline.  That  decay  was  associated 
with  three  other  phenomena  that  call  for  notice. 

a.  The  first  is  a  marked  increase  in  gloom  in  New  England  life. 
Gloom  had  heen  an  incident  of  Puritanism  in  its  best  day :  now  it  became 

1  See  Winthrop's  letters  in  the  Source  Book. 


DECAY  OF  PURITANISM  159 

so  dominant  as  to  distort  religion.  The  damnation  scene  of  Wiggles  worth's 
Day  of  Doom  was  long  the  most  popular  "poetry"  in  New  England. 
Two  extracts  may  indicate  its  character,  whether  for  literature  or  for 

thought : — 

"  They  cry,  they  roar,  for  Anguish  sore, 
And  gnash  their  Tongues  for  horror : 
But  get  away  without  delay  ; 
Christ  pities  not  your  Cry. 
Depart  to  Hell :  there  you  may  yell 
and  roar  eternally. 
***** 
"  God's  direful  Wrath  their  bodies  hath 
Forever  immortal  made  .  .  . 
And  live  they  must,  while  God  is  just, 
That  He  may  plague  them  so."  1 

To  modern  ears  this  seems  comic.  But  men  of  that  day  preferred 
Wiggles  worth's  ghastly  doggerel  to  Milton  ;  and,  as  Lowell  says  with  bit- 
ing satire,  the  damnation  scene  was  "the  solace  of  every  Puritan  fireside." 
Cotton  Mather,  who  admired  it,  predicted  that  its  popularity  would  endure 
until  the  day  of  doom  itself. 

b.  The  second  phenomenon  is  the  "Salem  witchcraft  madness"  of 
1692.  Throughout  the  seventeenth  century,  all  but  the  rarest  men  be- 
lieved unquestioningly  that  the  Devil  walked  the  earth  in  bodily  form 
and  worked  his  will  sometimes  through  men  and  women  who  had  sold 
themselves  to  him  in  return  for  supernatural  powers.  These  suspected 
"  witches,"  —  usually  lonely,  scolding  old  women,  — were  objects  of  uni- 
versal fear  and  hate.  In  Switzerland,  Sweden,  Germany,  France,  Great 
Britain,  great  numbers  of  such  wretches  were  put  to  death,  not  merely 
by  ignorant  mobs,  but  by  judicial  processes  before  the  most  enlightened 
courts.  In  England,  in  1603,  parliament  sanctioned  this  Common  Law 
process  by  a  statute  denouncing  the  penalty  of  death  for  those  who  should 
have  "Dealinges  with  evill  Spirits,"2  and  the  New  England  code  con- 

1  Among  these  "  damned,"  over  whose  fate  the  poet  gloats  in  this  way,  he 
is  careful  to  include  all  unbaptized  infants  as  well  as 
"civil  honest  men, 
That  loved  true  Dealing  and  hated  Stealing, 
Nor  wronged  their  brethren," 
but  whose  righteousness  had  not  been  preceded  by  "effectual  calling,"  in  the 
grotesque  phrase  of  the  day. 

2  This  law  remained  on  the  English  statute  books  until  1735;  and  in  1711 
Jane  Wenham  was  convicted  under  it  of  "conversing  with  the  Devil  in  the 
shape  of  a  cat." 


160  COLONIAL  LIFE 

tained  similar  legislation.  In  Virginia,  Grace  Sherwood  was  "swum  for 
a  witch"  in  1705,  and  the  jury  declared  her  guilty;  but  she  escaped 
punishment  through  the  enlightened  doubts  of  the  gentry  Justices.1  In 
Maryland  a  woman  was  executed  on  the  charge  of  witchcraft.  But  most 
of  the  American  persecutions  occurred  in  New  England. 

Connecticut  executed  eleven  witches,  and  about  as  many  more  suffered 
death  in  Massachusetts  before  1690.  Then  came  the  frenzy  at  Salem ;  and 
within  a  few  months  twenty  were  executed,  while  the  prisons  were  crammed 
with  many  scores  more  of  the  accused.  The  clergy  took  a  leading  part  in 
the  prosecutions ;  and  the  hideous  follies  of  the  trials  are  almost  incred- 
ible. While  the  madness  lasted,  the  flimsiest  accusations  were  equivalent 
to  proof.  One  neat  woman  had  walked  some  miles  over  bad  roads  with- 
out getting  herself  muddy :  "I  scorn  to  be  drabbled,"  she  said.  Plainly 
she  must  have  been  carried  by  the  Devil !  And  so,  says  Eggleston,  "  she 
was  hanged  for  her  cleanliness.1 '  Finally  the  common  sense  of  the  people 
awoke,  and  the  craze  passed  as  suddenly  as  it  had  come.  With  it,  closed 
all  legal  prosecution  for  witchcraft  in  New  England,  rather  earlier  than  in 
the  rest  of  the  world.  But  the  atrocities  of  the  judicial  murders  crowded 
into  those  few  months  must  always  make  a  terrible  chapter  of  history,  and 
they  must  be  charged  in  large  measure  to  the  weak  fanaticism  fostered  by 
Puritanism  in  its  decay.2 

c.  In  the  early  eighteenth  century  the  reaction  against  the  witchcraft 
delusion,  the  general  decline  of  Puritanism,  and  the  influx  of  dissenting 
Baptists  and  Episcopalians  into  New  England  greatly  lowered  the  old  in- 
fluence of  the  Puritan  clergy  in  society  and  in  politics.  There  began,  too, 
here  and  there,  a  division  within  Puritan  churches,  foreshadowing  the 
later  Unitarian  movement.  This  loss  of  religious  unity  brought  with  it 
for  a  time  some  loosening  of  morals,  and  part  of  the  people  ceased  to  have 
any  close  relation  to  the  church, — though  all  were  still  compelled  to  go 
to  service  each  Sunday. 

About  1735,  a  reaction  from  this  indifference  manifested  itself  in  "the 
Great  Awakening."    The  powerful  preaching  of  Jonathan  Edwards  and 

1  In  other  cases  in  Virginia,  the  juries  were  plainly  convinced  of  the  guilt 
of  the  accused,  but  no  executions  ever  took  place  in  that  colony.  In  the  more 
progressive  Pennsylvania,  the  most  that  could  be  secured  from  a  jury  was  a 
verdict  against  an  accused  woman  of  "  guilty  of  haveing  the  Common  fame  of 
a  witch,  but  not  guilty  as  Shee  stands  Indicted." 

2  Good  brief  treatments  of  the  witchcraft  delusion  are  found  in  Eggleston's 
Transit  of  Civilization,  15-34,  and  in  Channing's  History  of  the  United  States, 
II,  456-462.  Longer  treatments,  containing  some  exaggerations,  are  given  in 
James  Russell  Lowell's  "Witchcraft"  in  his  Works,  and  in  Lecky's  History 
of  European  Rationalism. 


EDUCATION  161 

the  impassioned  oratory  of  George  Whitfield  were  the  immediate  causes 
^Bf .  this  first  American  revival  movement. 

122.  Education.  —  Of  the  original  immigrants  below  the  gentry 
"nT  class,  a  large  proportion  could  not  write  their  names ;  and  for 
y  jjy  many  years,  in  most  colonies  except  Massachusetts  and  Connecti- 
p  i}r/  cut,  there  were  few  schools.  Parents  were  sometimes  exhorted 
* —  by  law  to  teach  their  children  themselves  ;  but  all  lacked  time, 
and  many  lacked  ability.1  The  closing  years  of  the  seventeenth 
century  were  a  period  of  deplorable  ignorance,  —  the  lowest 
point  in  book  education  ever  reached  in  America.2  With  the 
dawn  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  its  greater  prosperity, 
conditions  began  to  improve.  In  Pennsylvania,  parents  were 
required,  under  penalty  of  heavy  fine,  to  see  that  their  children 
could  read;  and  several  free  elementary  schools  were  established. 
In  Maryland  the  statute  book  provided  that  each  county  should 
maintain  a  school,  with  a  teacher  belonging  to  the  established 
Episcopalian  Church ;  but,  since  most  of  the  inhabitants  were 
Catholics  or  Protestant  dissenters,  the  law  was  ineffective.  In 
Virginia,  in  1671,  Governor  Berkeley  had  boasted,  "I  thank  God 
there  are  no  free  schools  here  nor  printing,"  and  had  hoped 
that  for  a  hundred  years  the  province  might  remain  unvexed  by 
those  causes  of  "  disobedience  and  heresy" ;  but  by  1724,  twelve 
free  schools  had  been  established  by  endowments  of  wealthy 
planters,  and  some  twenty  more  private  schools  were  flourish- 
ing. South  of  that  colony  there  was  no  system  of  schools  what- 
ever. Here  and  there,  however,  the  churches  did  something 
toward  teaching  children ;  and  of  course  the  wealthy  planters 
of  South  Carolina,  like  those  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  had 


xSee  the  "marks"  for  signatures  to  a  Rhode  Island  document  of  1636 
(Source  Book,  No.  89).  There  is  much  evidence  of  this  sort.  Priscilla  Alden 
in  Plymouth  could  not  sign  her  name.  In  1636  the  authorities  in  that  colony 
excused  themselves  for  having  as  yet  no  school  on  the  plea  of  poverty  and  the 
fact  that  "  Divers  of  us  take  such  paines  as  they  can  with  their  own  "  ;  but,  in 
view  of  the  fact  just  stated,  these  pains  probably  produced  little  effect.  Mary 
Williams,  wife  of  Roger  Williams,  signed  by  her  "  mark." 

2 For  instance,  the  Watertown  Records  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  83,  show  a 
gross  and  increasing  illiteracy  after  the  middle  of  the  century. 


162  COLONIAL  LIFE 

private  tutors  in  their  families,  and  sent  their  sons  to  colleges 
in  their  own  or  neighboring  colonies  or  to  the  English  Uni- 
versities. In  New  York,  the  Dutch  churches  had  begun  free 
schools ;  but  at  a  later  time,  because  of  the  connection  with 
the  church,  these  almost  disappeared.  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut  from  the  beginning  had  a  remarkable  system  of 
public  education  (§123)  ;  and  the  other  New  England  colonies 
gradually  followed  in  their  footsteps. 

By  1760,  though  the  actual  years  of  schooling  for  a  child  were 
usually  few,  an  astonishingly  large  part  of  the  population  could 
read,  —  many  times  as  large,  probably,  as  in  any  other  country 
of  the  world  at  that  time ;  but  there  was  still  dolefully  little  cul- 
ture of  a  much  higher  quality.  Between  1700  and  1770  several 
small  colleges  were  established,1  in  addition  to  the  older  Harvard 
(§123);  but  none  of  these  institutions  equaled  a  good  high 
school  of  to-day  in  curriculum,  or  equipment,  or  faculty. 

With  a  few  notable  exceptions,  the  only  private  libraries  of  consequence 
were  the  theological  collections  of  the  clergy.  In  1698  the  South  Caro- 
lina Assembly  founded  at  Charleston  the  first  public  library  in  America, 
and  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  Franklin  started  a  sub- 
scription library  at  Philadelphia.  In  1700  there  was  no  American  news- 
paper. The  Boston  News  Letter  appeared  in  1704,  and,  by  1725,  eight  or 
nine  weeklies  were  being  published,  pretty  well  distributed  through  the 
colonies.     Ten  years  later,  Boston  alone  had  five  weeklies. 

123.  Excursus :  the  Puritan  School  System.  —  The  schools  of 
early  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  demand  a  longer  treat- 
ment. Here  was  the  splendor  of  Puritanism,  —  a  glory  that 
easily  makes  us  forget  the  shame  of  the  Quaker  and  witch- 
craft persecutions.  The  public  school  system  of  America  to- 
day, in  its  essential  features,  is  the  gift  of  the  Puritans. 

In  Massachusetts  private  schools  seem  to  have  existed  in 
some  villages  from  the  building  of  the  first  rude  cabins.     In 

1  William  and  Mary,  in  Virgina,  1696 ;  Yale,  1701 ;  Princeton,  in  New  Jersey, 
1746;  King's,  in  New  York  (now  Columbia),  1754;  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania (through  the  efforts  of  Franklin),  1755;  and  Brown,  in  Rhode  Island, 
1764.     South  of  Virginia  there  was  no  educational  institution  of  rank. 


EDUCATION  16 

1635,  five  years  after  Winthrop's  landing,  a  Boston  town  meet- 
ing adopted  one  of  these  private  schools  as  a  town  school,  ap- 
pointing a  schoolmaster  and  appropriating  from  the  poor  town 
treasury  fifty  pounds  (some  twelve  hundred  dollars  to-day)  for 
its  support.  So  Salem  in  1637  and  Cambridge  in  1642.1  Such 
schools  were  a  new  growth  in  this  New  World,  suggested,  no 
doubt,  by  the  parish  and  endowed  schools  of  England,  but 
more  generously  planned  for  the  whole  public,  by  public 
authority. 

So  far,  the  movement  and  control  had  been  local.  Next  the 
commonwealth  stepped  in  to  adopt  these  town  schools  and 
weld  them  into  a  state  system.  This  step,  too,  was  taken  by  the 
men  of  the  first  generation,  —  pioneers,  still  struggling  for 
existence  on  the  fringe  of  a  strange  and  savage  continent.  In 
1642,  in  consideration  of  the  neglect  of  many  parents  to  train 
up  their  children  "in  learning  and  labor,  which  might  be  profit- 
able to  the  Commonwealth"  the  General  Court  passed  a  Compul- 
sory Education  Act  of  the  most  stringent  character,  authorizing 
town  authorities  even  to  take  children  from  their  parents,  if 
•  needful,  to  secure  their  schooling.2 

This  Act  assumed  that  schools  were  accessible  in  each  town. 
Five  years  later,  the  commonwealth  required  each  town  to 
maintain  &  primary  school  or  a  grammar  school  (Latin  school), 
according  to  its  size.  This  great  law  of  1647  (written  with 
solemn  eloquence,  as  if,  in  some  dim  way,  the  pioneers  felt 
the  grandeur  of  their  deed)  was  the  beginning  of  a  state  system, 


1  In  1645  Dorchester  —  still  a  rude  village  —  adopted  a  code  of  school 
laws  of  comprehensive  nature,  well  illustrating  educational  ideals  of  the 
town.  See  extensive  extracts  in  Source  Book,  No.  81.  Note  that  these 
schools  were  free  in  the  sense  of  being  open  to  all.  Commonly  they  were 
supported  in  part  by  taxation,  but  tuition  was  charged  also  to  help  cover  the 
cost. 

2  The  Puritan  purpose  was  good  citizenship,  as  well  as  religious  training. 
The  preamble  of  the  similar  Connecticut  Act  of  1644  runs:  "  For  as  much  as 
the  good  education  of  children  is  of  singular  behoof  and  benefit  to  any  Common- 
wealth" etc.  (Each  Massachusetts  educational  statute  was  copied  within  two 
or  three  years  in  New  Haven  and  Connecticut.) 


164  COLONIAL  LIFE 

and  it  remains  one  of  the  mighty  factors  that  have  influenced 
the  destiny  of  the  world.1 

James  Kussell  Lowell,  after  a  delightful  reminiscence  of  the  New  Eng- 
land crossroads  schoolhouse,  continues:  "Now  this  little  building,  and 
others  like  it,  were  an  original  kind  of  fortification  invented  by  the 
founders  of  New  England.  These  are  the  martello-towers  that  protect 
our  coast.  This  was  the  great  discovery  of  our  Puritan  forefathers. 
They  were  the  first  lawgivers  who  saw  clearly,  and  enforced  practically, 
the  simple  moral  and  political  truth,  that  knowledge  was  not  an  alms,  to 
be  dependent  on  the  chance  charity  of  private  men  or  the  precarious  pit- 
tance of  a  trust-fund,  but  a  sacred  debt  which  the  commonwealth  owed  to 
every  one  of  its  children.  The  opening  of  the  first  grammar-school  was 
the  opening  of  the  first  trench  against  monopoly  in  state  and  church  ;  the 
first  row  of  pot-hooks  and  trammels  which  the  little  Shearjashubs  and 
Elkanahs  blotted  and  blubbered  across  their  copy-books  was  the  preamble 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence." 

The  Puritan  plan  embraced  a  complete  state  system  from  primary  school 
to  "  university. "  In  1636,  a  year  after  Boston  established  the  first  town 
school,  Massachusetts  had  established  her  "  state  university "  (as  Har- 
vard truly  was  in  the  seventeenth  century,  though  it  was  named  for  the 
good  clergyman  who  afterward  endowed  it  with  his  library) .  The  law 
of  1647  joined  primary  school  and  university  in  one  whole,  providing  that 
each  village  of  a  hundred  householders  must  maintain  a  "grammar- 
school,  with  a  teacher  able  to  instruct  youth  so  as  they  may  be  fitted  for 
the  University." 

True,  this  noble  attempt  was  too  ambitious.  Grinding  poverty  made 
it  impossible  for  frontier  villages  of  four  or  five  hundred  people  to  main- 
tain a  Latin  school ;  and,  despite  heavy  fines  upon  the  towns  that  failed  to 
do  so,  such  schools  gradually  gave  way,  except  in  one  or  two  large  places, 
to  a  few  private  academies,  —  which  came  to  represent  the  later  New 
England  idea  in  secondary  education.  Thus,  the  state  system  was  broken 
at  the  middle,  and  both  extremities  suffered.  The  universities  ceased 
finally  to  be  state  institutions  ;  and  the  primary  schools  deteriorated 
sadly,  especially  in  the  period  of  Puritan  decline  about  1700,  with  meager 
courses,  short  terms,  and  low  aims.  But  with  all  its  temporary  failure  in 
its  first  home,  the  Puritan  ideal  of  a  state  system  of  public  instruction 

1  See  Source  Book,  No.  82,  for  this  Act  in  full,  and  for  extracts  from  other 
school  laws  of  the  time.     See,  also,  extracts  in  No.  83  as  to  town  schools. 


POPULATION  165 

was  never  lost  in  America  ;  and  it  was  finally  made  real  in  a  newer  New 
England  in  the  Northwest  (§§  183,  close,  and  291). 

J\cA>  124.  Population :  Immigration :  Slaves  and  Servants. — A  third 
s  of  the  inhabitants  in  1775  had  been  born  in  Europe.  The  Eng- 
lish nationality  (if  the  Scotch-Irish  be  included),  was  the  domi- 
nant element  in  every  colony.  In  New  England  and  tidewater 
Virginia  —  except  for  a  small  Huguenot  immigration  —  and  in 
Maryland,  it  was  almost  the  only  element.  In  the  Carolinas 
the  Huguenots  were  numerous,  and  in  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  there  was  a  large  German  population.  South  Carolina, 
too,  had  many  Highland  Scots.1  The  largest  non-English  ele- 
ments, however,  and  the  greatest  mixture  of  races,  were  found 
in  the  Middle  colonies :  Dutch  and  Germans  in  New  York ; 
Dutch  and  Swedes  in  Delaware ;  Germans,  Welsh,  and  Celtic 
Irish  in  Pennsylvania.  In  the  Carolinas,  Virginia,  and  Penn- 
sylvania, the  back  counties  were  settled  mainly  by  the  Scotch- 
Irish,  or  Presbyterian  English. 

In  the  fifteen  years  preceding  the  Eevolution  (1760-1775), 
population  had  risen  from  1,600,000  (§  112)  to  2,500,000.  One 
fifth  of  all  were  Negro  slaves.  Nearly  half  the  whole  popu- 
lation was  found  south  of  Pennsylvania;  but  while  there  were 
some  Negroes  in  every  colony,  most  of  them  were  massed  south 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  making  nearly  half  the  total  popu- 
lation there.  The  South  contained  only  a  little  more  than  half 
as  many  Whites  as  the  North.2 


1  These  came  to  America  after  the  defeat  at  Culloden  and  the  breaking  up 
of  the  clan  system.  Among  these  fugitives  was  Scott's  heroine,  Flora  Mac- 
Donald,  and  her  husband.  Curiously  enough,  these  people  were  Tories,  to  a 
man,  in  the  Revolution.  The  same  conservative  and  loyal  temper  which  had 
made  them  cling  to  the  exiled  House  of  Stuart  in  England  made  them  in 
America  adherents  of  King  George. 

2  In  1619,  while  Virginia  was  still  the  only  English  colony  on  the  continent, 
she  received  her  first  importation  of  Negro  slaves,  twenty  in  number.  As 
late  as  1648,  there  were  only  300  in  her  population  of  15,000.  By  1670  the 
number  had  risen  to  2000  (out  of  a  total  of  40,000).  A  century  later 
nearly  half  her  population  was  Black;  while  in  South  Carolina,  more  than 
half  was  Black.     In  Maryland  the  proportion  was  about  a  fourth,  and  in 


166  COLONIAL  LIFE 

In  New  England,  labor  was  in  the  main  free :  the  inden- 
tured White  servant  had  nearly- disappeared,  though  something 
very  similar  was  provided  for  minors  by  the  cruel  appren- 
ticeship system  of  the  time.  White  bond  servants  were  still 
the  chief  supply  of  manual  labor  in  the  Middle  colonies,  and 
an  important  element  in  Virginia.  The  man  who  sold  him- 
self into  service  for  four  or  seven  years,  in  return  for  passage 
money  for  himself  or  his  family,  was  known  as  a  "redemp- 
tioner"  or  "  free-wilier."  The  German  immigrants  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  like  many  of  the  English  settlers  (§  19), 
came  in  this  way.  Besides  this  class,  there  had  always  been 
White  convicts  transported  from  England  and  condemned  to  a 
term  of  service,  —  seven  or  fourteen  years.  After  1717,  this 
class  increased  rapidly  in  number,  averaging  1000  a  year  for 
the  fifty  years  preceding  the  Revolution.  A  third  kind  of 
White  "  servants  "  were  those  "  spirited  "  from  England  by  kid- 
napers; but  except  for  several  thousands  such  unfortunates 
in  the  times  of  Charles  II,  the  number  was  small.  Classed 
with  the  convicts  in  law,  but  very  different  from  them  in  char- 
acter, were  the  political  "  convicts,  "  —  prisoners  sold  into  serv- 
ice by  the  victorious  parties,  each  in  turn,  during  the  English 
civil  wars  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Often  the  convicts  were  not  hardened  criminals,  but  rather  the  vic- 
tims of  the  atrocious  laws  in  England  at  the  time.  Many  were  intelli- 
gent and  capable.  In  Maryland  in  1773  a  majority  of  all  tutors  and 
teachers  are  said  to  have  been  convicts.  Some  of  them  (like  a  much  larger 
part  of  the  redemptioners),  after  their  term  of  service,  became  prosperous 
and  useful  citizens.1  Even  in  aristocratic  Virginia,  a  transported  thief  rose 
to  become  attorney-general.  But  of  course  a  great  many  more  were  ex- 
ceedingly undesirable.  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  made  attempts  by  law 
to  stop  the  importation  of  convict  servants  ;  but  such  legislation  was  al- 
ways vetoed  in  England. 

New  York,  a  seventh.     North  Carolina  had  fewer  than  the  other  southern 
colonies ;  and  there  were  few  slaves  in  New  England  or  Pennsylvania. 

1  Charles  Thomson,  Secretary  of  the  Continental  Congress,  was  a  "  re- 
demptioner,  "  as  was  also  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence. So,  too,  was  Zenger  (§  119) ;  and  many  members  of  colonial  legislatures 
could  be  named  who  came  to  America  as  "  bond  servants." 


"SERVANTS"  AND  SLAVES  167 

The  condition  of  this  large  class  of  White  servants  was  often 
a  deplorable  servitude  (JSourqe  Book,  Nos.  116,  117).  The 
colonial  press,  up  to  the  Revolution,  teems  with  advertisements 
offering  rewards  for  runaway  servants.  More  than  seventy 
such  notices  are  contained  in  the  "  Newspaper  Extracts  "  pub- 
lished in  the  New  Jersey  Archives  for  that  little  colony,  and 
for  only  the  two  years,  1771,  1772.  This  must  have  meant  one 
runaway  servant  to  each  1000  of  the  population ;  and  probably 
not  half  the  runaways  are  in  those  advertisements.  One  run- 
away is  described  as  " born  in  the  colony"  about  50  years  old, 
and  as  having  served  in  the  last  ivar  (French  War),  and  a  car- 
penter by  trade. 

There  are  still  more  significant  and  gruesome  notices  by 
jailers,  proving  that  it  was  customary  to  arrest  a  vagrant 
workingman  on  suspicion  of  his  being  a  runaway,  and  then,  if 
no  master  appeared  to  claim  him  within  a  fixed  time,  to  sell 
him  into  servitude  jor  his  jail  fees  !  American  law  and  custom 
permitted  these  barbarities  upon  the  helpless  poor  in  the  days 
of  Lexington  and  Bunker  Hill. 

Negroes  were  not  numerous  enough  in  the  North  (except 
perhaps  in  New  York)  to  affect  the  life  of  the  people  seri- 
ously. In  the  South,  Black  slavery  degraded  the  condition  of 
the  indentured  White  "  servant,"  and  —  more  serious  still  — 
made  it  difficult  for  him  .to* find  profitable  and  honorable  work 
when  his  term  of  service  had  expired.  As  early  as  1735,  the 
result  appeared  in  the  presence  of  the  class  known  later  as 
"poor  whites.'*  In  that  year  William  Byrd,  a  Virginian 
planter,  declared  that  these  "  Ethiopians  "  "  blow  up  the  Pride 
and  ruin  the  Industry  of  our  White  People,  who,  seeing  a  Rank 
of  poor  Creatures  below  them,  detest  work  for  Fear  it  should 
make  them  look  like  Slaves." l 


1  In  Virginia,  as  a  rule,  slavery  was  patriarchal  and  mild ;  while  in  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  (where  the  rice  plantations  were  supplied  with  ever 
fresh  importations  frum  Africa)  it  was  excessively  brutal.  In  all  colonies 
with  a  large  slave  population  there  were  incredibly  cruel  "  Black  Laws,*'  to 
keep  slaves  from  running  away  or  from  rising  against  their  masters;  and 


168  COLONIAL   LIFE 

Dependence  upon  slave  labor,  too,  helped  to  keep  industry 
purely  agricultural  in  the  Soutja,  since  the  slave  was  unfit  for 
manufactures  or  for  the  work  of  a  skilled  artisan. 

Tobacco  raising  was  the  chief  employment  in  the  tidewater 
districts  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina,  and  rice 
cultivation  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  These  tidewater 
staples  were  grown  mainly  on  large  plantations;  and  the  Vir- 
ginia planter  in  particular  sought  to  add  estate  to  estate,  and 
to  keep  land  in  his  family  by  rigid  laws  of  entail.1  Between 
this  class  of  large  planters  and  the  "  poor  whites,"  however, 
there  was  always  a  considerable  number  of  small  farmers  in 
Virginia ;  and  in  North  Carolina  this  element  was  the  main 
one  in  the  population.  The  western  counties  of  all  the  colo- 
nies were  occupied  exclusively  in  small  farming. 

In  the  Middle  colonies,  foodstuffs  were  raised  on  a  large 
scale.  These  colonies  exported  to  the  West  Indies  (both  Eng- 
lish and  French)  most  of  the  bread,  flour,  beer,  beef,  and  pork 
used  there.  In  these  colonies,  too,  immigrant  artisans  from 
Germany  early  introduced  rudimentary  manufactures,  —  linen, 
pottery,  glassware,  hats,  shoes,  furniture. 

In  New  England,  the  majority  of  the  people  lived  still  in 
agricultural  villages  and  tilled  small  farms ;  but  they  could  not 
wring  all  their  subsistence  from  the  scanty  soil.  Each  farmer 
was  a  "  Jack-at-all-trades."  In  the*  winter  days,  he  hewed  out 
clapboards,  staves,  and  shingles ;  and  in  the  long  evenings,  at  a 
little  forge  in  the  fireplace,  he  hammered  out  nails  and  tacks 
from  a  bar  of  iron.2     At  the  very  beginning  of  New  England 


everywhere  the  general  attitude  of  the  law  toward  the  slave  was  one  of  in- 
difference to  human  rights.  The  worst  phases  of  the  law  were  not  often  ap- 
pealed to  in  actual  practice ;  but  in  New  York  in  1741,  during  a  panic  due  to  a 
supposed  plot  for  a  slave  insurrection,  fourteen  negroes  were  burned  at  the 
stake  (with  legal  formalities)  and  a  still  larger  number  were  hanged,  —  all  on 
very  flimsy  evidence. 

1  "  Entail "   is  a  legal  arrangement  to  prevent  laud  from  being  sold  or 
willed  away  out  of  a  fixed  line  of  inheritance. 

2  Even  in  the  towns,  all  but  the  merchant  and  professional  classes  had  to 
be  able  to  turn  their  hands  to  a  variety  of  work  if  they  would  prosper.    Mr. 


OCCUPATIONS  169 

colonization,  too,  rude  sawmills,  run  by  water,  were  used  to 
convert  the  forest  into  simple  forms  of  lumber;  and  the  mak- 
ing of  pearl-ash  was  an  important  industry  through  the  whole 
period.  Other  manufactures  appeared,  though,  with  one  excep- 
tion, on  a  smaller  scale  than  in  Pennsylvania.  The  exception 
was  shipbuilding.  New  England  built  ships  for  both  American 
and  English  markets.  With  her  splendid  timber  at  the  water's 
edge,  Massachusetts  could  launch  an  oak  ship  at  about  half  the 
cost  of  a  like  vessel  in  an  English  shipyard ;  and  in  1775  at 
least  a  third  of  the  vessels  flying  the  English  flag  had  been 
built  in  America.  The  swift-sailing  schooner,  perfected  in 
this  period,  was  peculiarly  a  New  England  creation.  Another 
leading  industry  was  the  fisheries,  —  cod,  mackerel,  and  finally, 
as  these  bred  an  unrivaled  race  of  seamen,  the  whale  fisheries 
of  both  polar  oceans.  New  England,  too,  was  preeminently 
the  commercial  section  of  America.  Her  merchants  sent  ships 
laden  with  fish,  lumber,  oil,  and  rum  (manufactured  from  West 
India  sugar)  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  carried  on  most  of 
the  trade  between  the  other  colonies. 

Thus  in  the  South,  industry  was  very  simple,  and  was  carried  on  largely 
by  forced  labor,  White  or  Black.  North  of  Maryland,  it  was  more  varied, 
carried  on  mainly  by  free  men.  Wages  for  this  free  labor  were  exceed- 
ingly low,  —  in  1750,  about  fifty  cents  a  day  for  skilled  artisans  and 
thirty  cents  for  unskilled  workmen. 

All  the  colonies  imported  their  better  grades  of  clothing  and  of  other 
manufactures  from  England.  The  southern  planters  dealt  through  agents 
in  England,  to  whom  they  consigned  their  tobacco.  For  the  other  colo- 
nies the  "circle  of  exchange"  was  a  trifle  more  complex.  They  all  im- 
ported from  England  more  than  they  sold  there.  But  they  sold  to  the 
French  and  English  West  Indies  more  than  they  bought,  receiving  the 
balance  in  money,  —  mainly  French  and  Spanish  coins, —with  which 
they  settled  the  adverse  balances  in  England. 

Weeden  tells  of  a  certain  John  Marshall,  a  constable  at  Braintree  and  a  com- 
missioned officer  in  the  militia  company  there,  who  "  farmed  a  little,  made 
laths  in  the  winter,  was  painter  and  carpenter,  messenger,  and  burned  bricks, 
bought  and  sold  live-stock,"  and  who  managed  by  these  varied  industries  to 
earn  about  four  shillings  a  day. 


17* 


COLONIAL  LIFE 


This  drain  of  coin  from  America  to  England  was  incessant,  and  there 
were  no  "banks"  to  furnish  currency.  In  the  need  of  a  "circulating 
medium"  (especially  during  the  Intercolonial  Wars,  when  the  govern- 
ments needed  funds),  nearly  all  the  colonies  at  some  time  after  1690 
issued  paper  money.  The  business  was  always  badly  handled,  and  great 
depreciation  followed,  with  serious  economic  confusion.  In  consequence, 
the  English  government  finally  forbade  any  more  such  issues,  to  the  great 
vexation  of  large  elements  in  America. 

The  South  had  few  towns,  —  none  of  consequence  (except 
Charleston)  south  of  Baltimore.  Most  of  the  houses  were 
frame  structures,  white,  with  a  long  porch  in  front,  set  at  in- 
tervals of  a  mile  or  more  apart,  often  in  parklike  grounds. 
The  small  class  of  wealthy  planters  lived  on  vaster  estates, 
separated  from  neighbors  by  grander  distances.  In  any -case, 
a  true  "plantation  "  ivas  a  unit  social  and  economic,  apart  from 
the  rest  of  the  world.  The  planter's  importations  from  Europe 
were  unladen  at  his  own  wharf,  and  his  tobacco  (with  that  of 
the  neighboring  small  farmers)  was  taken  aboard.  Leather 
was  tanned ;  clothing  for  the  hundreds  of  slaves  was  made ; 
blacksmithing,  woodworking,  and  other  industries  needful  to 
the  little  community,  were  carried  on,  sometimes  under  the  di- 
rection of  White  foremen.  The  mistress  supervised  weaving 
and  spinning ;  .the  master  rode  over  his  fields  to  supervise  cul- 
tivation. The  two  usually  cared  for  the  slaves,  looked  after 
them  in  sickness,  allotted  their  daily  rations,  arranged  "  mar- 
riages." The  central  point  in  the  plantation  was  the  imposing 
mansion  of  brick  or  wood,  surrounded  by  houses  for  foremen 
and  other  assistants  and  by  a  number  of  offices.  At  a  distance 
was  a  little  village  of  Negro  cabins.  The  chief  bond  with  the 
outer  world  was  the  lavish  hospitality  between  the  planter's 
family  and  neighbors  of  like  position  scattered  over  many  miles 
of  territory. 

A  wholly  different  society  was  symbolized  by  even  the  ex- 
terior of  New  England,  as  suggested  above,  —  small  farms  sub- 
divided into  petty  fields  by  stone  fences  (gathered  from  the 
soil),  and  the  clustering  of  all  habitations  in  hamlets  which 
dotted  the  landscape,  each  marked  by  the  spire  of  a  white 


NORTH  AND  SOUTH  ^71 

church,  and,  seen  closer,  made  up  of  a  few  wide,  elm-shaded 
streets  with  rows  of  small  but  decent  houses,  each  in  its  roomy 
yard. 

And  yet,  even  in  New  England,  people  were  expected  to  dress  accord- 
ing to  their  social  rank  ;  and  inferiors  were  made  to  "  keep  their  places," 
in  churches  and  public  inns.  The  club  room  and  the  inn  parlor  were  for 
the  gentry  only ;  the  tradesman  and  his  wife  found  places  in  the  kitchen 
or  tap  room. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Besides  references  in  the  footnotes,  atten- 
tion is  called  to  the  following  material :  James  Russell  Lowell's  es^ay 
"New  England  Two  Centuries  Ago"  in  his  Works;  Fiske's  Old  Vir- 
ginia, II,  174-269  ;  Channing,  II,  367-526  ;  Alice  Morse  Earle's  Customs 
and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England  and  Home  Life  in  Colonial  Days ; 
C.  F.  Adams'  Three  Episodes  of  Massachusetts  History.  On  American 
industries,  see  especially  Shaler's  United  States,  I,  ch.  10  ;  Eggleston's 
"Commerce  in  the  Colonies"  in  the  Century  Magazine,  III,  V-VIII ; 
and  Bishop's  American  Manufactures,  I.  Fiction:  Mary  Johnston's 
Prisoners  of  Hope ;  F.  J.  Stimson's  King  Noanett.  (Both  these  stories 
deal  with  White  servitude.) 

M 


9 


PART   II 

THE  MAZING  OP  THE  NATION 
CHAPTER   VI 

SEPARATION   FROM   ENGLAND 

125.  The  American  Revolution  is  one  of  the  great  episodes  of  all  his- 
tory. It  established  the  first  independent  American  state,  —  the  first  of 
many  to  follow  through  revolution  against  Old-World  colonial  policies. 
It  helped  to  make  the  colonial  policy  of  all  countries  less  selfish  and  more 
enlightened.  Through  its  influence  upon  the  French  Revolution,  it  re- 
acted upon  the  internal  development  of  Europe. 1  It  was  the  prelude  to 
the  creation  in  North  America  of  a  truer  form  of  federal  republic  than 
the  world  had  before  known.  It  "  split  the  English-speaking  race,  and 
so  doubled  its  influence." 

The  period  of  the  revolution  covers  twenty  years,  —  from  1763  to  1783. 
The  first  twelve  were  spent  in  constitutional  wrangling ;  the  next  eight 
in  war  (1763-1775*  1775-1783)- 

I.  PREPARATION  IN  THE  INTERCOLONIAL  WARS 

The  seventy  years  of  intercolonial  wars,  with  which  we  have 
dealt  so  briefly  (§  114),  furnished  one  indispensable  prepara- 
tion for  the  Revolution.  Those  wars  closed  in  1763.  At  the 
moment  they  seemed  to  have  given  England  a  new  colonial 
empire ;  but  soon  it  appeared  that  instead  they  had  endangered 
her  old  empire.  The  confidence  of  the  colonists,  due  to  their 
military  experience  with  European  soldiers,  was  highly  impor- 
tant ;  but  there  were  three  more  vital  influences.  These  wars 
had  removed  the  need  of  English  protection  ;  they  had  brought 
about  attempts  to  tax  America  ;  and  they  had  partly  prepared 
the  colonies  for  union  (§§  126-128). 

1  Modern  History,  §  308,  note. 
172 


PREPARATION  IN  THE    FRENCH  WARS  173 

126.  Preparation  for  Federation.  —  In  1763,  the  colonies  were 
still  divided  by  sectional  jealousies  and  prejudices  to  a  degree 
almost  inconceivable.  Common  danger,  however,  had  already 
done  something  to  bring  them  together  politically.  In  1698, 
near  the  beginning  of  the  French  wars,  William  Penn  drew  up 
a  scheme  for  colonial  federation ;  and  in  1754,  Franklin  pre- 
sented to  the  colonial  governors  in  council  at  Albany  his  famous 
draft  of  a  constitution  for  a  federated  colonial  state.1  Between 
these  two  dates,  at  least  seven  other  plans  of  like  nature  had 
appeared.2  True,  the  great  body  of  colonists  everywhere  ig- 
nored or  rejected  these  proposals;  but  the  discussion  prepared 
men  for  federation  when  a  stronger  motive  should  arise.  With- 
out union,  resistance  to  England  would  have  been  impossible. 

127.  The  conquest  of  Canada  removed  the  need  of  English  pro- 
tection. For  some  time,  far-sighted  men  had  seen  that  the 
colonies  must  remain  true  to  England  while  the  dreaded  French 
power  threatened  them  from  Canada.3     These  views  were  not 


1  See  Source  Book,  No.  114. 

2  Howard's  Preliminaries,  10-15,  gives  a  good  account  of  them. 

3  Thus  Peter  Kalm,  a  shrewd  Swedish  traveler,  wrote  in  1748:  "It  is  of 
great  advantage  to  the  crown  of  England  that  the  colonies  are  near  a  country 
under  the  government  of  the  French.  .  .  .  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
king  was  never  earnest  in  his  attempts  to  expel  the  French  from  their  posses- 
sions there,  though  it  might  easily  have  been  done.  ...  I  have  been  publicly 
told,  not  only  by  native  Americans,  but  by  English  emigrants,  that  within 
thirty  or  fifty  years  the  English  colonies  in  North  America  may  constitute  a 
separate  state,  entirely  independent  of  England.  But  as  the  whole  country 
toward  the  sea  is  unguarded,  and  on  the  frontier  is  kept  uneasy  by  the  French, 
these  dangerous  neighbors  are  the  reason  why  the  love  of  these  colonies  for 
their  metropolis  does  not  utterly  decline. 

So,  too,  Montcalm,  dying  at  Quebec,  consoled  himself:  "This  defeat  will 
one  day  be  of  more  service  to  my  country  than  a  victory.  .  .  .  England  will 
be  the  first  victim  of  her  colonies."  Choiseul,  the  French  minister,  signing  the 
treaty  by  which  France  surrendered  her  American  empire,  declared  that  he 
was  signing  also  "  the  death  warrant  of  English  power  in  America."  And 
Vergennes,  then  French  minister  at  Constantinople,  prophesied  to  an  English 
traveler  there :  "  England  will  soon  repent  of  having  removed  the  only  check 
that  could  keep  her  colonies  in  awe.  They  no  longer  need  her  protection. 
She  will  call  upon  them  to  contribute  toward  the  support  of  burdens  they  have 
helped  bring  upon  her;  and  they  will  answer  by  striking  off  all  dependence." 


174  PRELIMINARIES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

unknown  to  the  English  government.  The  ministry  had  re- 
fused to  cooperate  with  the  colonists  for  the  conquest  of  Canada 
during  King  George's  War  (preceding  the  French  and  Indian 
War).  Pitt's  imperial  views  had  now  brought  about  that  con- 
quest ;  but  William  Burke  (a  friend  and  kinsman  of  the  famous 
orator)  published  a  forceful  argument  that  England  ought  to 
restore  Canada  to  France,  perhaps  in  return  for  a  West  India 
island,  but,  if  necessary,  without  compensation,  merely  to  secure 
her  own  safety  in  America.1 

Such  ignoble  caution  had  been  cast  aside  by  Pitt's  splendid 
ambition  for  his  country  and  by  his  pride  in  the  new  Eng- 
land beyond  seas.  And  if  jPitt's  views  had  continued  to  con- 
trol England's  colonial  policy,  no  trouble  in  the  near  future 
would  have  resulted.  But  when  Pitt's  influence  waned,  trouble 
for  England  did  follow  from  the  situation  which  his  statesman- 
ship had  created. 

128.  The  intercolonial  wars  afforded  the  immediate  occasion  for  con- 
troversy with  the  mother  country.  The  colonies  had  been  held  to  Eng- 
land by  ties  internal  and  external,  —  by  sentiment  and  affection,  and  by 
fear  of  foreign  peril.  During  the  preceding  century,  however,  the  internal 
bond  had  been  sapped,  insensibly,  by  the  large  non-English  immigration 
and  by  the  incessant  disputes  over  commercial  regulations,  paper  money, 
royal  vetoes,  and  governors'  salaries  (§119).  Now  that  the  external 
pressure  was  removed,  only  a  shock  was  needed  to  separate  the  two 
halves  of  the  empire.  This  shock  the  intercolonial  wars  provided,  since 
they  led  parliament  to  tax  the  colonies  (§§  129  ff.).  The  colonists  were  then 
forced  to  ask  themselves  whether  in  the  future  the  protection  afforded  by 
England  would  compensate  them  for  their  dependent  position. 

II.   THE   QUESTION   OPENED.     ATTEMPTS   AT  TAXATION/ 

The  situation  created  by  the  intercolonial  wars  led  promptly  to  three 
attempts  at  taxation,  —  the  "  writs  of  assistance"  to  enforce  old  laws; 
the  Sugar  Act  of  1764  ;  and  the  Stamp  Act.  (Later  provisions,  like  those 
of  Townshend  and  Lord  North  [§§  139-141]  were  designed  not  so  much 
to  raise  revenue  as  to  vindicate  previous  policy  and  assert  authority.) 

1  The  student  will  find  a  striking  extract  from  Burke's  plea  in  Woodburn's 
Lecky's  American  Revolution,  3-5. 


WRITS  OF  ASSISTANCE  175 

129.  "Writs  of  Assistance"  mark  an  attempt  to  enforce  the 
old  Navigation  Acts  with  a  new  energy.  This  policy  began 
with  Pitt,  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  and  its  original 
purpose  was,  not  to  raise  revenue,  but  to  stop  a  shameful  trade 
with  the  enemy. 

Lecky,  the  liberal  English  historian,  writes:  "At  a  time  when  the 
security  of  British  America  was  one  of  the  first  objects  of  English  policy, 
and  when  large  sums  were  remitted  from  England  to  pay  the  colonists  for 
fighting  in  their  own  cause,  it  was  found  that  the  French  fleets  and  garri- 
sons were  systematically  supplied  with  large  quantities  of  provisions  by  the 
New  England  colonists."  Even  Bancroft,  with  his  strong  American  prej- 
udices, admits  that  Pitt's  measures  were  intended  not  to  enforce  the  trade 
laws  in  the  interest  of  British  commerce,  but  "solely,  in  time  of  war,  to 
distress  the  enemy." 

The  indignant  preamble  of  Pitt's  instructions  to  the  colonial  governors1 
runs:  "The  Commanders  of  His  Majesty's  Forces  .  .  .  having  trans- 
mitted repeated  and  certain  Intelligence  of  an  illegal  and  most  pernicious 
Trade  carried  on  by  the  King's  Subjects  in  North  America  ...  to  thei 
French  Settlements  ...  by  which  the  Enemy  ...  is  supplied  with  Pro- 
visions and  other  Necessaries,  whereby  they  are  principally,  if  not  alone 
enabled  to  sustain  and  protract  this  long  and  expensive  War  ...,'' 
therefore  the  officers  of  the  crown  are  to  .make  stringent  exertions  to  stop 
['  this  dangerous  and  ignominious  Trade.'1'' 

Such  treasonable  trade  was  largely  condoned  by  public  opin- 
ion in  the  colonies,  and  was  easily  confused  with  the  ordinary 
smuggling  which  had  long  made  parts  of  the  navigation  laws  a 
dead  letter.  Accordingly,  the  customs  officials  fell  back  upon 
remedies  worse  than  the  evil.  In  1755,  they  began  to  use 
general  search  ivarrants,  known  as  "  writs  of  assistance."  This 
form  of  warrant  was  a  recent  abuse  in  English  government, 
first  sanctioned  by  law  in  the  evil  times  of  Charles*  II.  It  ran 
counter  to  the  ancient  English  principle  that  a  man's  house  was 
p  his  castle,"  into  which  not  even  the  officer  of  the  law  might 
enter  without  the  owner's  permission,  except  upon  definite  cause 
shoivn.  Unlike  ordinary  ("  special ")  warrants,  these  new  docu- 
ments did  not  name  a  particular  place  to  be  searched  or  a  par- 
ticular  thing  to  be  searched  for,  nor  did  they  make  public  the 
name  of  the  informer  upon  whose  testimony  they  were  issued. 


176  PRELIMINARIES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

They  authorized  any  officer  to  enter  any  house  upon  any  sus- 
picion, and  "were  directed  against  a  whole  people."  They 
might  easily  become  instruments  of  tyranny,  and  even  of  per- 
sonal revenge  by  petty  officials. 

George  III  came  to  the  throne  in  1760;  and,  according  to 
law,  all  such  writs  of  the  past  reign  lost  validity  within  six- 
months.  Accordingly,  in  1761,  an  official  for  the  port  of  Bos- 
ton applied  to  the  Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts  for  their 
renewal.  The  Boston  merchants  determined  to  fight  the  case. 
James  Otis,  the  brilliant  young  Advocate  General,  resigned 
his  office  rather  than  argue  for  the  writs,  and  took  the  case  for 
the  merchants.  He  lost  the  case.  The  Massachusetts  judges, 
with  conservative  subservience  to  precedent,  were  unanimous 
against  him;  and,  when  the  General  Court  the  next  spring 
passed  an  act  expressly  forbidding  general  writs,  the  judges 
advised  the  governor  to  veto  it.  But  meantime  Otis'  fiery 
argument  stirred  the  minds  of  the  people  and  opened  the  whole 
question  of  parliamentary  control. 

"Otis  was  a  flame  of  fire,"  declared  John  Adams,  many  years  later; 
"then  and  there  the  child  Independence  was  born."1  Otis  described 
the  general  warrants  as  "the  worst  instrument  of  arbitrary  power,  the 
most  destructive  of  English  liberty  and  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
law,  that  ever  was  found  in  an  English  law  book."  He  contended,  he 
said,  against  "a  kind  of  power,  the  exercise  of  which  had  cost  one  king  of 
England  his  crown,  and  another  his  head."  After  picturing  vividly  the 
abuses  to  follow  such  an  instrument  of  despotism,  he  concluded :  "No 
Act  of  Parliament  can  establish  such  a  writ.  .  .  .  An  act  against  the 
constitution  is  void."  2 


1  This  comes  from  Adams'  later  account.  The  other  quotations  in  the  para- 
graph are  from  notes  taken  at  the  time  by  Adams,  then  a  law  student. 

2  This  final  argument  is  natural  to  Americans  to-day,  familiar  as  we  are 
with  the  idea  of  a  written  constitution  as  a  fundamental  law,  to  which  all 
other  law  must  conform.  In  England  to-day  such  an  argument  would  be  al- 
most impossible,  since  there  parliament  has  come  to  be  so  supreme  that  it  can 
change  the  law  and  the  "constitution  "  at  will.  In  older  English  history, 
however,  the  Common  Law  and  the  great  charters  (especially  in  so  far  as 
they  protected  the  rights  of  the  individual)  had  been  regarded  somewhat  as 
we  regard  our  constitutions ;  and  in  the  time  of  Otis  that  view  had  not  been 


^ 


DECISION  TO  TAX  AMERICA  177 

Soon  afterward  Otis  published  his  views  upon  the  rights  of  the  colo- 
nists in  two  pamphlets,  which  were  widely  read.  "God  made  all  men 
naturally  equal,"  he  affirms.  Government  is  "  instituted  for  the  benefit 
of  the  governed,"  and  harmful  governments  should  be  destroyed.  Parlia- 
ment he  recognizes  as  supreme  (so  long  as  it  governs  fitly),  but  he  urges 
that  the  colonists,  besides  keeping  their  local  legislatures,  "  should  also  be 
represented,  in  some  proportion  to  their  number  and  estates,  in  the  grand 

legislature  of  the  nation.'''' 

- 
.    130.    Grenville's  Policy.  —  In  1763,  peace  removed  the  special 

occasion  for  the  writs  of  assistance ;  and,  in  their  enthusiastic 
gratitude  to  England  for  protection,  the  Americans  were  ready 
to  forget  their  irritation.  But,  in  that  same  year,  George 
Grenville  became  head  of  the  ministry,  —  an  earnest,  narrow 
man,  without  tact  or  statesmanship,  bent  upon  raising  a  reve- 
nue in  America. 

Merely  as  a  matter  of  abstract  logic,  a  good  case  could  be 
made  out  for  such  action.  The  intercolonial  wars  had  made 
England  the  greatest  world  power ;  but  they  left  her,  too,  stag- 
gering under  a  debt  such  as  no  country  to  that  time  had 
dreamed  of.  The  colonists  were  prosperous  and  lightly  bur- 
dened. Eight  millions  of  Englishmen  owed  a  war  debt  of 
ninety  dollars  a  head  - —  incurred  largely  in  defending  two  mil- 
lion colonials,  whose  public  debt  counted  less  than  two  dollars 
a  head.  The  ministry  were  straining  every  resource  at  home 
to  augment  revenues,  and  they  called  upon  the  colonials  to 
contribute  a  part  toward  their  own  future  defense. 

Nor  could  the  colonists  excuse  themselves  adequately  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  done  enough  in  the  wars.  The  struggles 
in  America  had  been  little  more  than  scattered  skirmishes, 

altogether  lost.  Indeed  a  few  years  later  (1766),  the  Court  of  the  King's 
Bench  declared  "general  warrants "  in  England  unconstitutional.  General 
"  writs  of  assistance  "  (for  enforcing  customs  duties),  continued,  however,  to 
be  used  there  until  1819. 

How  profoundly  the  argument  of  Otis  impressed  America  is  seen  from  the 
fact  that  when  Virginia  in  177(5  adopted  the  first  written  state  constitution, 
the  declaration  of  rights  prohibited  "  general  warrants  "  (§§148,  149).  This 
provision  has  appeared  in  nearly  all  our  subsequent  State  constitutions,  and 
it  is  found  in  the  Federal  Constitution  (Amendment  IV). 


178  PRELIMINARIES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

compared  with  the  titanic  conflicts  in  the  Old  World; !  and  to 
the  English  fleet  it  was  due  that  France  had  not  made  The  con- 
test more  serious  on  this  side  the  Atlantic.2  Moreover,  even 
in  America,  England  had  furnished  fully  half  the  troops  and 
nearly  all  the  money,  —  repaying  each  colony  for  all  expenses 
in_maintaining  its  own  troops  when  outside  its  own  borders.3. 

The  ministry  had  to  face  "  not  a  theory,  but  a  condition."  The  victory 
over  France  had  brought  not  only  burdens  for  the  past,  but  also  obliga- 
tions for  the  future.  It  seemed  needful  to  maintain  a  garrison  of  ten 
thousand  men  in  America,  to  guard  against  Indian  outbreaks  and  against 
French  reconquest.4    But  the  colonists  dreaded  a  standing  army  as  an  ii 

1  Pitt  had  declared  that  he  would  "conquer  [French]  America  in  Ger- 
many," and  he  did  so,  by  aiding  and  subsidizing  Frederick  the  Great  (Modern 
History,  §277). 

2  Refusing  Montcalm's  passionate  calls  for  troops,  the  French  government 
wrote :  "  If  we  sent  a  large  reinforcement,  there  would  be  great  fear  lest  the 
English  might  intercept  them." 

3  See  Doyle's  English  Colonies,  V,  486-487,  and  George  Beers  in  Am.  Hist. 
Association  Report  for  1906,  I,  182-185.  At  Quebec,  Wolfe  had  8500  regulars 
and  only  700  colonials  —  whom  he  described  as  "  the  dirtiest,  most  contempt- 
ible cowardly  dogs  .  .  .  such  rascals  as  are  an  encumbrance  ...  to  an 
army."  Amherst  at  Louisburg  had  only  100  colonials  with  his  11,000  troops. 
In  the  Crown  Point  expedition  of  1755  (before  war  was  formally  declared), 
the  3000  Provincials  made  the  whole  force ;  and  of  the  5000  troops  in  the  field 
during  the  next  year,  4000  were  colonials.  But  after  war  was  declared,  the 
English  troops  plainly  preponderated.  Barry,  the  American  historian,  esti- 
mates the  average  proportions  as  about  half  and  half. 

4  Pontiac's  War,  the  most  terrible  Indian  outbreak  the  colonists  ever  knew, 
came  just  at  the  close  of  the  French  War,  in  1763,  and  raged  for  more  than  a 
year,  sweeping  bare,  with  torch  and  tomahawk,  a  long  stretch  of  western 
country  running  through  three  colonies  and  including  many  hundreds  of 
square  miles.  A  few  British  regiments,  left  in  the  country  from  the  preced- 
ing French  War,  were  the  only  reason  the  disaster  was  not  unspeakably  worse. 
For  six  months  they  were  the  only  troops  in  the  field.  The  Pennsylvania  leg- 
islature, despite  frantic  appeals  from  the  governor,  delayed  in  its  plain  duty 
to  provide  defense  for  its  own  frontier,  —  partly  perhaps  from  Quaker  princi- 
ples, but  more  from  a  shameful  dislike  felt  by  the  older  districts  for  the 
Scotch-Irish  western  counties;  while  the  savages,  having  worked  their  will  in 
that  province,  carried  their  raids  across  its  southern  border,  getting  into  the 
rear  of  a  small  force  with  which  George  Washington  was  striving  gallantly 
to  guard  the  western  frontier  of  Virginia.  Washington's  force,  too,  was  for 
months  altogether  insufficient  even  for  its  own  task.    His  letters  to  the  gov- 


THE   SUGAR  ACT  OF   1764  179 

strument  of  tyranny,  and  would  do  nothing  to  help  support  one.  Gren- 
ville  determined  to  supply  the  money  partly  from  the  English  treasury, 
partly  by  taxing  the  colonists  without  their  consent.  He  would  turn  the 
navigation  acts  into  a  source  of  revenue  —  instead  of  merely  a  means  of  reg- 
ulating trade  and  benefiting  English  merchants;  and  he  would  raise 
money  in  the  colonies  directly  by  internal  taxes,  which  had  never  before  been 
attempted. 

Grenville's  purpose  may  have  been  justifiable;  but  his  means  must 
certainly  be  condemned.  Whether  the  Americans  were  right  or  not  in 
refusing  to  maintain  a  garrison  by  taxing  themselves,  they  surely  were 
right  in  opposing  Grenville's  attempt  to  force  them  to  maintain  one. 

Franklin,  agent  for  Pennsylvania,  urged,  in  conference  with  Grenville, 
that  the  colonists  should  be  left  to  raise  the  necessary  sums  through  their 
separate  legislatures,  upon  requisitions  from  the  crown  ;  but  when  asked 
how  the  amount  should  be  apportioned  and  how  payment  could  be  assured, 
he  was  silenced.  The  method  of  requisitions  had  never  worked,  and  no 
blame  attaches  to  Grenville  for  refusing  to  be  deluded  longer  by  such  a 
snare.     The  blame  he  incurs  is  for  the  substitute  he  chose. 

There  was  another  alternative,  stated  by  Lecky,  which,  if  not  satis- 
factory, was  infinitely  better  than  to  break  with  fundamental  principles  of 
liberty  :  "  It  would  have  been  far  wiser  ...  to  have  abandoned  the  proj- 
ect of  making  the  Americans  pay  for  their  army,  and  to  have  thrown  the 
burden  on  the  mother  country  [where  most  of  it  was  to  rest  anyway]. 
Heavily  taxed  as  Englishmen  were  .  .  .  the  support  of  a  small  American 
army  would  not  have  been  overwhelming,  while  a  conflict  with  the  colo- 
nists on  this  matter  could  lead  to  no  issue  but  disaster." 

There  was  still  another  possibility.  If  the  English  government  had 
cared  to  do  so,  it  could  probably  have  secured  the  adoption  of  Franklin's 
"  Albany  Plan,"  with  a  central  federal  Assembly  for  the  colonies.  With 
one  Assembly  (in  place~of  thirteen)  the  English  government  could  have 
dealt  satisfactorily. 


V, 


131.  The  Sugar  Act  of  1764.  —  Grenville  had  already  issued 
orders  for  rigid  enforcement  of  the  old  navigation  acts,  which 
(except  for  Pitt's  war  measures)   had  slumbered  for  genera- 

ernor  of  Virginia  complain  bitterly;  but  the  governor's  many  and  earnest 
entreaties  to  his  legislature  for  supplies  and  reinforcements  bore  fruit  very 
slowly.  Washington  declared  that  he  would  have  been  wholly  helpless  for  a 
long  and  critical  period,  had  he  not  had  under  his  command  a  small  troop  of 
English  soldiers. 


180  PRELIMINARIES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

tions  ;  and  zealous  officers  in  America  had  begun  to  irritate  the 
merchant  class  by  numerous  seizures  of  ships  and  cargoes. 
Then  upon  communities,  angry  and  suspicious,  fell  news  of  new 
taxation  by  parliament. 

The  French  West  Indies  were  an  important  market  for  the 
products  of  New  England  and  the  Middle  colonies  (§  124),  pay- 
ing in  sugar  and  money/  With  rum,  manufactured  from  the 
sugar,  New  England  merchants  carried  on  other  profitable  trade 
(especially  for  slaves  on  the  coast  of  Africa).  The  Sugar  Act 
of  1733  (§  116)  had  sought  to  check  importation  of  French 
sugar,  in  the  interest  of  the  British  West  Indies ;  but  it  had 
never  been  enforced.  The  "  Sugar  Act "  of  1 764  announced  the 
purpose,  not  of  regulating  trade,  but  of  raising  revenue  in  the 
colonies  "  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  defending,  protecting, 
and  securing  the  same."  It  was  much  more  than  a  mere 
"  sugar  act n  ;  it  was  a  revision  of  the  navigation  system  in  the 
interest  of  the  new  policy  of  revenue.  It  aiso  provided  machinery 
more  efficient  than  ever  before,  to  enforce  the  laws.  But  its 
most  offensive  feature  at  the  moment  was  its  absolute  prohibi- 
tion of  trade  with  the  French  colonies. 

The  commercial  colonies  were  driven  into  spasms  of  terror.  They  be- 
lieved with  reason  that  enforcement  of  the  new  law  meant,  not  merely  a 
new  and  heavy  tax  on  their  trade,  but  its  utter  ruin,  so  that  they  would 
no  longer  be  able  to  pay  for  the  imports  they  needed  from  England. 
They  had  never  so  feared  French  conquest  as  they  now  feared  the  loss  of 
French  trade.  With  every  mail  from  America,  a  storm  of  protests  as- 
sailed the  ministry,  while  for  several  months  little  noise  was  made  about 
the  Stamp  Act,  of  which  full  notice  had  been  given  (§  132). 

Indeed,  the  Sugar  Act  was  the  more  dangerous.  It,  too,  was  taxation 
without  representation  (though  the  tax  was  external,  not  internal, — to 
use  a  favorite  distinction  of  the  time).  But  it  was  much  more  than  a  rev- 
enue measure.  Merely  as  a  tax,  it  was  more  severe,  though  less  direct, 
than  the  Stamp  Act;  and,  in  its  other  aspects,  it  exercised  a  kind  of 
power  much  more  likely  to  be  abused  than  the  power  of  direct  taxation. 
But  the  Sugar  Act  did  not  directly  affect  the  southern  colonies  ;  and 
therefore  resistance  to  it  could  not  arouse  a  united  America.  Moreover, 
though  this  law  did  aim  to  raise  revenue,  still  in  form  it  was  like  preced- 
ing navigation  acts,  to  which  the  colonists,  in  theory  at  least,  had  long  as- 


THE   STAMP  ACT  181 

sented.  As  Dr.  Howard  well  says,1  the  "economic  grievance"  of  this 
law  "lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  revolutionary  contest,"  but  the  leaders  of 
opinion  needed  a  better  rallying  cry  than  it  afforded. 

132.  The  Stamp  Act  gave  this  opportunity.  Early  in  1764, 
Grenville  had  called  together  the  agents  of  the  colonies  in 
London,  to  announce  the  nature  of  the  proposed  taxation. 
They  argued  earnestly  against  it,  but  proposed  no  other  satis- 
factory method  of  supporting  a  garrison.  Parliament,  there- 
fore, promptly  adopted  resolutions  approving  the  proposed 
policy ;  but  a  year  was  given  for  the  colonies  to  provide  some 
other  means.  The  colonies  confined  themselves  to  protests. 
In  the  fall  of  1764,  the  Sugar  Act  fell  into  the  background ; 
and  from  colonial  town  meetings  and  Assemblies  petitions 
began  to  assail  the  ministry  against  the  unconstitutional  nature 
of  the  Stamp  Act  plan.  These  communications  seem  never  to 
have  been  presented  in  parliament.  In  March,  1765,  the  law 
was  enacted,  almost  without  discussion,  and  with  no  suspicion 
of  the  storm  about  to  break. 

The  Stamp  Act  was  modeled  upon  a  law  in  force  in  Great  Britain.  As 
a  tax  it  was  not  exorbitant.  It  required  the  use  of  stamps  or  stamped 
paper  for  newspapers,  pamphlets,  cards  and  dice,  and  for  all  legal  docu- 
ments (wills,  deeds,  writs).  In  a  few  instances,  where  the  document 
recorded  some  important  grant,  the  cost  of  the  stamp  rose  to  several 
pounds  ;  but,  as  a  rule,  the  tax  ranged  from  a  penny  to  a  shilling  or  two. 
Not  a  penny  was  to  benefit  England  or  to  help  pay  off  past  indebted- 
ness. The  whole  revenue  was  appropriated  in  advance  to  the  future 
support  of  an  American  garrison.2 

Now  came  a  significant  change  in  the  agitation  in  America. 
Astute  leaders  seized  the  chance  to  rally  public  dissatisfaction 
against  England  by  appeals  to  the  traditional  cry,  —  "No  taxa- 
tion without  representation."  The  opposition  to  the  Sugar 
Act  had  rested  upon  a  concrete  money  grievance;  but,  from 
1765,  the  colonists  contended,  not  against  actual  oppression 
suffered,  but  against  a  principle  which  might  lead  to  oppres- 

1  See  an  admirable  treatment  in  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,  104-120. 

2  See  extracts  from  the  law,  and  from  the  Sugar  Act,  in  the  Source  Book. 


182  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

sion.  "  They  made  their  stand,"  says  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  "  not 
against  tyranny  inflicted,  but  against  tyranny  anticipated." 
The  Americans  surpassed  even  the  English  of  that  day  in 
what  Burke  called  "the  fierce  spirit  of  liberty."  The  freest 
people  of  their  age,  they  were  fit  for  more  freedom,  and  could 
wage  a  revolution  for  ideas. 

// 

III.     FUNDAMENTAL   CAUSES    / 

jfore  continuing  the  narrative,  it  will  be  well  to  understand  certain 
underlying  causes  and  conditions.  America  was  of  age,  —  able  to  set  up  for 
herself  (§  133);  and,  in  growing  up,  she  had  grown  away  from  the  mother 
country  (§134).  Separation,  or  some  radical  readjustment,  inevitable 
from  these  fundamental  causes,  was  hastened  by  two  other  conditions,  — 
the  incompetence  of  the  British  King  and  ministry  (§  136),  and  a  move- 
ment for  greater  democracy  within  American  society  (§  137). 

133.  The  Colonial  System  outgrown.  —  England's  colonial 
system  had  guided  and  guarded  the  colonies  while  they  needed 
help  and  protection.  It  was  not  tyrannical ;  but  it  was  some- 
times selfish  and  often  short-sighted,  and  it  always  carried  the 
possibility  of  further  interference,  economic,  political,  and 
ecclesiastical.1  True,  until  1764,  actual  interference  had  never 
been  seriously  hurtful.  Often  it  had  been  helpful.  But  any 
interference  was  vexatious  to  a  proud  people,  who  now,  through 
their  own  growth  and  the  removal  of  foreign  danger,  felt  safe 
enough  and  strong  enough  to  manage  their  own  affairs.  77ie 
Americans  had  outgrown  any  colonial  system  possible  in  that  day. 
The  time  had  come  for  independence. 

1  Many  ^shrewd  observers  (John  Adams  among  others)  believed  that  the 
Revolution  was  caused  largely  by  dread  of  ecclesiastical  interference. 
Several  times  it  had  been  suggested  that  England  should  establish  bishops  in 
America.  Even  the  most  strongly  Episcopalian  colonies,  like  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  resisted  this  proposal  (needful  as  bishops  were  to  the  true  effi- 
ciency of  their  form  of  church  organization).,  and  the  other  colonies  were 
bitter  in  opposition,  because  of  the  political  power  of  such  officers  of  the 
church  at  that  time.  After  the  Revolution,  bishops,  consecrated  in  England, 
were  received  without  a  murmur. 


% 


^ 


*JC 


&i<& 


«ftfe 


S»j- 


An  Attempt  to  land  a  Bishop  in  America. 

(From  a  Colonial  publication,  illustrative  of  Colonial  feeling.     The  vessel's  name  is  taken 

from  Lord  Hillsborough,  secretary  for  Colonial  affairs.) 


cou 


184  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

Mellin  Chamberlain,  in  one  of  his  historical  addresses,  puts  the  cause  of 
the  Revolution  in  a  nutshell.  Levi  Preston  was  one  of  the  minutemen  of 
Danvers  who  ran  sixteen  miles  to  get  into  the  Lexington  fight.  Nearly 
seventy  years  afterward,  Mr.  Chamberlain  interviewed  the  old  veteran  as 
to  his  reasons  that  April  morning.  "Oppressions?"  said  the  aroused 
veteran;  "what  were  they?  I  didn't  feel  any.1'  "Stamp  Act?"  "I 
never  saw  one  of  the  stamps."  "  Tea  tax  ?  "  "I  never  drank  a  drop  of 
the  stuff  ;  the  boys  threw  it  all  overboard."  "  Well,  I  suppose  you  had 
been  reading  Sidney  or  Locke  about  the  eternal  principles  of  liberty." 
"Never  heard  of  them.  We  read  only  the  Bible,  the  Catechism,  Watt's 
Hymns,  and  the  Almanac."  "Then  what  did  you  mean  by  going  into 
that  fight?"  "Young  man,  what  we  meant  in  going  for  those  redcoats 
was  this :  we  always  had  governed  ourselves,  and  we  always  meant  to. 
They  didn't  mean  we  should." 

134.  Divergence  of  Institutions.  —  The  blundering  ministry 
Id  not  see  that  the  Americans  had  become  a  nation.  Worse 
still,  they  chose  just  this  time  for  an  irritating  policy  which 
made  the  Americans  themselves  see  that  tremendous  fact 
sooner  than  otherwise  they  might.  In  part,  at  least,  this 
colossal  mistake  was  due  to  the  other  fundamental  cause  un- 
derlying the  necessity  of  separation. 

The  first  part  of  our  history  has  dealt  with  the  development 
of  colonial  institutions  out  of  selected  English  institutions  trans- 
planted into  a  new  environment.  If  all  of  England  could  have 
been  picked  up  and  set  down,  strung  out  along  the  thousand 
miles  of  American  coast  from  Maine  to  Georgia,  its  develop- 
ment during  the  next  two  centuries  would  have  been  very  dif- 
ferent from  what  it  actually  was  in  the  little  European  island: 
the  new  physical  conditions  would  have  caused  a  difference 
(§§  l^S).  But  not  all  England,  only  certain  selected  people  and 
selected  institutions,  had  been  transplanted,  —  upon  the  whole, 
too,    the'  more   democratic   elements1   in    English    society  and 

iThus,  no  hereditary  nobility  was  established  in  America,  and  neither 
monarch  nor  bishop  in  person  appeared  in  American  society.  Moreover,  the 
relatively  democratic  elements  that  did  come  were  drawn  rapidly  further 
toward  democracy  by  the  presence  in  America  of  unlimited  free  land.  This 
helped  to  maintain  equality  in  society  and  in  industry,  and  so,  indirectly,  in 
politics. 


DIVERGENCE  BETWEEN  AMERICA  AND  ENGLAND    185 

politics.  Therefore,  the  divergence  between  the  European 
English  and  the  American  English  had  been  rapid.  By 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  this  divergence  had 
gone  so  far  that  the  two  peoples  could  no  longer  understand  each 
other. 

The  two  branches  of  the  English  race  spoke  the  same  political  phrases  ; 
but  on  the  two  sides  of  the  Atlantic  these  phrases  no  longer  stood  for  the 
same  ideas.  "  Personal  liberty  "  had  a  broader  significance  in  America 
than  in  England,  as  was  seen  in  the  libel  trials  (§  119)  and  in  the  agita- 
tion over  writs  of  assistance  (§  129).  And  while  both  sections  of  Eng- 
lishmen clung  to  the  doctrine  "  No  taxation  without  representation,"  still 
these  words  meant  one  thing  in  England  and  a  very  different  thing  in 
America.1 

In  England,  since  1688,  representative  institutions,  always 
imperfect,  had  been  shrinking,  —  becoming  more  and  more  vir- 
tual.2 In  America,  representative  institutions  had  been  ex- 
panding, —  becoming  more  and  more  real.  The  English  system 
had  become,  in  Macaulay's  words,  "a  monstrous  system  of 
represented  ruins  and  unrepresented  cities."  Originally  it  had 
been  a  representation  of  estates  (classes),  not  of  people;  and, 
with  growth  of  population  and  industrial  changes,  there  had 
arisen  great  classes  of  population  not  represented  at  all.  No 
attempt  had  been  made  (except  one,  soon  undone,  during  the 
brief  Puritan  rule)  to  adjust  representation  to  the  population 
of  the  different  parts  of  England ;  and  now,  with  the  shifting 
of  population,  many  populous  cities  had  grown  up  without  any 
representation  whatever,  while  many  decayed  cities,  perhaps 
without  a  single  inhabitant,  or  with  only  a  handful  of  voters 
(pocket  or  rotten  boroughs),  kept  their  ancient  "  representa- 

1  This  fundamental  truth  for  the  study  of  the  Revolution  has  been  stated 
so  admirably  by  Dr.  Channing  in  his  Students'  History  of  the  United  States 
(140-144)  that  subsequent  writers  have  no  choice  except  to  follow  his  presen- 
tation.   The  student  should  read  the  passage  in  full  in  Channing's  text. 

2  A  concise  five-page  account  of  that  shrinkage  of  representative  govern- 
ent  in  England  in  the  eighteenth  century  will  be  found  in  the  Modern 
History,  §  527. 


186  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

tion."  In  reality,  a  small  body  of  landlords  appointed  a 
majority  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  many  of  these  "rep- 
resentatives "  were  utterly  unknown  in  the  places  they  "  repre- 
sented." The  House  of  Commons  had  become  hardly  more 
representative  than  the  House  of  Lords. 

To  an  Englishman,  accustomed  to  the  English  system  and 
content  with  it,  "  No  taxation  without  representation  V  meant 
no  taxation  by  royal  edict,  no  taxation  except  by  the  House 
of  Commons,  a  "  representative  "  body.  And  such  au  English- 
man might  argue  (as  Lord  Mansfield  did)  that  parliament 
represented  Massachusetts  as  much  as  it  did  the  English 
Manchester,  which  equally  with  Massachusetts  was  without 
votes  for  parliament.  There  are  more  men  in  England,  it  was 
urged,  who  are  taxed  and  who  cannot  vote  than  there  are  in- 
habitants in  all  America.  Parliament  virtually  represents  the 
colonies,  and  therefore  has  the  right  to  tax  them. 

The  argument  was  weak,  even  if  representation  was  to  re- 
main "  virtual."  Manchester,  though  without  votes,  was  sure 
to  influence  parliament,  and  to  be  understood  by  parliament, 
far  better  than  distant  Massachusetts.1  But  the  American 
was  not  content  with  virtual  representation :  he  demanded  real 
representation.  True,  there  were  imperfections  in  the  Ameri- 
can system.  Some  colonies,  notably  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Carolinas,  had  been  slow  to  grant  a  proper  share  in  their  legis- 
latures to  their  own  western  counties  (§  137,  b).  But  upon  the 
whole,  the  system  was  fair  and  adequate  to  the  needs  of  the 
country.  The  electoral  districts  were  about  equal  in  popula- 
tion ;  the  franchise,  without  being  universal,  was  extended  far 
enough  to  reach  most  men  with  a  little  property;  and  each 
little  district  chose  for  its  representative,  at  frequent  intervals, 
a  man  resident  in  its  midst  and  well  known  to  the  voters.  To 
the  American,  "  No  taxation  without  representation  "  meant 
no  taxation  except  by  a  representative  body  in  his  own  colony, 
chosen  under  such  conditions  as  these. 

1  Find  illustrations  of  this  American  argument  in  the  Source  Book. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  IMPERIAL  UNION  187 

In  this  dispute  the  Englishman  stood  upon  past  history  and  upon  the 
old  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  the  English  constitution.  The  American 
stood  for  a  meaning  that  had  come  to  pass  in  America,  —  a  higher  and 
truer  meaning,  because  more  in  accord  with  future  liberty  and  progress. 
The  victory  of  the  American  idea  was  to  make  possible  its  adoption  in 
England  also  at  a  somewhat  later  time. x 

135.  Problem  of  Imperial  Unity.  —  The  problem,  however, 
was  not  merely  one  of  method  in  taxation  :  it  was  a  question 
also  of  maintaining  the  unity  of  the  British  Empire.  To  pre- 
serve the  greatest  free  state  the  world  had  ever  seen,  appealed 
to  a  noble  patriotism  on  both  sides  the  Atlantic.  But  while 
Englishmen  argued  that,  to  preserve  unity,  the  authority  of 
parliament  must  be  admitted  supreme,  Americans  refused  to 
recognize  that  authority  in  taxation,  and  so  were  driven  soon  to 
deny  any  authority  in  parliament. 

Even  then,  the  colonists  still  clung  to  union  with  England  as 
"  the  source  of  our  greatest  happiness,"  and  strove  to  find  some 
other  bond  between  the  parts  of  the  empire.  In  this  dilemma, 
many  of  the  leaders  were  driven  to  a  peculiar  doctrine :  the 
colonies,  they  said,  were  subject,  not  to  parliament,  but  to  the 
crown.  The  union  between  Massachusetts  and  England,  ac- 
cording to  this  view  of  Jefferson  and  Franklin,  was  only  "in 
the  person  of  the  sovereign,"  like  the  union  between  England 
and  Scotland  under  James  I.2  George  III  was  king  in  England 
and  king  in  Massachusetts ;  but  parliament  was  the  legislature 
of  the  British  Isles  only,  as  the  General  Court  was  the  legisla- 
ture of  Massachusetts. 

In  the  argument  over  taxation,  the  Americans  had  the  best  of  it,  be- 
cause they  placed  themselves  upon  modern  conditions,  ignoring  dead 
theories.  But  in  this  second  argument,  it  was  the  Americans  who  clung 
to  a  dead  theory.  In  earlier  times  there  had  been  some  basis  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  crown's  sovereignty  in  America.  The  colonies  were 
founded  upon  ' '  crown  lands  " ;  and  the  kings  tried  to  keep  them  as  crown 

1  Modern  History,  §§  529-536.  Cf.  also  Lecky's  treatment  of  the  English 
theory  in  Woodburn's  Lecky's  American  Revolution,  77-78. 

2  Modern  History,  §  281,  a. 


188  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

estates.  In  those  days,  the  colonists  had  been  glad  to  seek  refuge  in 
management  by  parliament.  During  the  Commonwealth,  parliament  ex- 
ercised extensive  control,  and  ever  since,  from  time  to  time  it  had  legislated 
for  the  colonies,  —  not  merely  in  commercial  regulations,  but  in  various 
beneficent  matters,  as  in  the  establishment  of  the  colonial  Post  Office. 
Meantime,  the  English  Revolution  of  1688  had  made  parliament  supreme 
over  the  king.  George  III  was  "king  in  Massachusetts  "  only  because  he 
was  Icing  of  England  ;  and  he  was  king  of  England  only  because  of  an  Act 
of  Parliament.1  Indeed,  had  the  king's  power  been  real  any  longer,  the 
colonists  would  never  have  appealed  to  a  theory  of  "personal  union." 
Tlie  plea  was  a  device  to  escape  real  control  of  any  kind. 

.  Neither  the  extreme  English  nor  the  extreme  American  theory 
fitted,  because  the  situation  was  new.  Within  two  or  three  gen- 
erations, England,  had  been  transformed  from  a  little  island 
state,  with  a  few  outlying  plantations,  into  the  center  of  a 
world  empire.  Within  the  same  period,  the  relative  power  of 
king  and  parliament  had  shifted  greatly  in  the  government  of 
England  itself.  This  change  necessarily  involved  a  new  rela- 
tion between  parliament  and  the  colonies ;  but  just  ichat  that 
relation  ought  to  be  was  not  clearly  agreed.  Plainly  this  colonial 
theory  of  Franklin  and  Jefferson  would  not  do.  It  was  not  at 
all  in  accord  with  the  new  liberal  English  constitution;  nor 
would  it  secure  any  real  imperial  unity.  In  England,  mean- 
while, some  statesmen  had  evolved  a  new  constitutional  theory 
not  satisfactory  in  some  vital  respects,  but  much  more  in  accord 
with  the  new  conditions  of  the  empire.  This  theory  is  best 
stated  in  a  noble  passage  toward  the  close  of  Burke's  great 
oration  on  American  Taxation :  — 

"  I  look  upon  the  imperial  rights  of  Great  Britain  and  the  privileges 
which  the  colonists  ought  to  enjoy  under  those  rights  to  be  just  the  most 
reconcilable  things  in  the  world.  The  parliament  of  Great  Britain  sits  at 
the  head  of  her  extensive  empire  in  two  capacities :  one  as  the  local  legis- 
lature of  this  island.  .  .  .  The  other,  and  I  think  her  nobler,  capacity  is 
what  I  call  her  imperial  character,  in  which,  as  from  the  throne  of  heaven, 
she  superintends  all  the  inferior  legislatures,  and  guides  and  controls  them 
all,  without  annihilating  any.  ...    It  is  necessary  to  coerce  the  negligent, 

1  Act  of  Settlement ;  ib.,  §  253. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  IMPERIAL  UNION  189 

to  restrain  the  violent,  and  to  aid  the  weak  ...  by  the  over-ruling  pleni- 
tude of  her  power."  Parliament,  the  orator  continues,  is  not  to  intrude 
into  the  place  of  an  inferior  colonial  legislature  while  that  body  answers  to 
its  proper  functions  ;  "  but,  to  enable  parliament.to  accomplish  these  ends 
of  beneficent  superintendence,  her  power  must  be  boundless,"  —  including 
even  the  power  to  tax,  Burke  adds  explicitly,  though  he  regards  that  as  a 
reserve  power,  to  be  used  only  in  the  last  extremity,  as  "an  instrument 
of  empire,  not  a  means  of  supply." 

That  is,  Burke  would  have  had  parliament  recognized  as 
possessing  absolute  power,  in  order  that  at  need  it  might 
preserve  the  empire;  but  lie  would  have  had  it  waive  its 
authority  in  ordinary  times  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  colo- 
nists to  self-government  through  their  local  legislatures. 
Probably  this  would  have  been  as  nearly  satisfactory  as  any 
solution  of  the  problem  then  possible,1  if  union  was  to  be 
maintained.  If  it  had  been  adopted  in  good  faith,  and  worked 
tactfully  by  the  British  government,  separation  would  have 
been  at  least  postponed.  Fortunately,  no  doubt,  the  incompetent 
British  government  of  the  day  adopted  the  first  half  of  the 
theory,  as  to  the  supremacy  of  parliament,  and  worked  that 
theory  (not  as  Burke  would  have  had  them,  but,  as  he  warned 
them  in  another  oration  not  to  do)  "  with  too  much  logic  and 
too  little  sense  "  ;  and  the  machinery  collapsed. 

We  must  remember  that  most  Englishmen  and  many  Americans 
thought  this  imperial  control  infinitely  more  necessary  for  the  sake  of  the 
colonies  than  for  the  sake  of  England.  To  say  nothing  of  a  supposed 
deficiency  in  population  and  wealth,  each  colony  had  been  guilty,  time 
after  time  during  the  past  seventy  years,  of  sacrificing  the  safety  of  a 

1  Certainly  it  was  better  than  the  absurd  contention  to  which  William  Pitt 
was  driven,  —that  Parliament  might  govern  the  colonies  in  all  other  matters 
hut  might  not  tax  them,  because  "taxation  is  no  part  of  the  governing  or 
legislative  power."  When  Pitt's  great  intellect  could  find  no  way  but  this  to 
reconcile  freedom  and  empire,  the  difficulty  must  have  been  great  indeed. 
One  solution  would  have  been  correct  theoretically,  —  to  give  the  colonies 
adequate  representation  in  a  reformed  parliament.  This  plan  was  suggested 
by  James  Otis,  and  was  approved  by  Franklin  in  America  and  by  Adam  Smith 
in  England;  but,  in  practice,  even  had  both  parties  been  willing,  such  a  solu- 
tion could  not  have  worked  in  that  day,  while  steam  and  electricity  had  not 
yet  conquered  time  and  space. 


190  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

neighboring  colony,  and  sometimes  even  that  of  its  own  frontier,  to  an 
ignorant  and  cruel  parsimony  or  to  mean  and  wicked  jealousy.1  In  such 
miserable  history  there  was  abundant  justification  for  the  common  and 
heartfelt  conviction  of  the  utter  incapacity  of  the  colonies  to  combine  in 
their  own  defense,  except  under  the  beneficent  constraint  of  England. 

But  not  merely  do  " new  occasions  teach  new  duties":  new  duties 
many  and  many  a  time  call  forth  unsuspected  energies  and  new  capacities, 
in  nations,  as  in  individual  men.  So,  almost  at  once,  at  the  stirring  call 
of  Independence,  the  weak  and  divided  colonies  did  unite  efficiently 
enough  to  protect  themselves  not  only  without  England,  but  against  her. 
The  men  who  in  advance  believed  that  the  colonies  could  do  so  drew 
their  conviction  not  from  the  multitude  of  disgraceful  facts  in  recent 
history,  but  from  a  broad  survey,  or  from  a  deeper  faith  in  their  country- 
men and  in  human  nature  —  from  "the  evidence  of  things  not  seen." 
They  were  radicals,  rather  than  conservatives,  in  temperament. 

er'T^''  136.  Relation  of  the  Revolution  to  Reform  in  England.  —  That 
the  governments  of  Townshend  and  Lord  North  (§§  139,  141) 
were  permitted  by  parliament  to  drive  the  colonists  to  rebellion 
was  due,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  fact  before  referred  to  (§  123) 
that  parliament  represented  England  "  virtually  w  rather  than 


1  Any  detailed  history  of  the  intercolonial-war  period  abounds  in  illus- 
trations. John  Fiske,  New  France  and  New  England,  242  ff.,  gives  one 
case  where  Massachusetts  exposed  her  own  borders,  together  with  those  of 
other  New  England  colonies,  to  the  terrible  ravages  of  torch  and  scalping 
knife,  because  the  legislature  most  unjustifiably  objected  to  certain  capa- 
ble but  unpopular  officers.  Another  striking  instance  has  been  referred 
to  above  (§132).  Peter  Kalm  (cf.  §127)  wrote:  "Not  only  is  the  sense  of 
one  province  sometimes  opposed  to  that  of  another,  but  frequently  the  views 
of  the  governor  and  those  of  the  Assembly  of  the  same  province  are  quite 
different.  ...  It  has  commonly  happened  that  while  some  provinces  have 
been  suffering  from  their  enemies,  the  neighboring  ones  were  quiet  and 
inactive  ...  as  if  it  did  not  in  the  least  concern  them.  They  have  frequently 
taken  two  or  three  years  in  considering  whether  they  should  give  assistance 
to  an  oppressed  sister  colony,  and  sometimes  they  have  expressly  declared 
themselves  against  it.  There  are  instances  of  provinces  .  .  .  who  even  carried 
on  a  great  trade  with  the  Power  which  at  the  very  time  was  attacking  and 
laying  waste  some  other  provinces."  Such  considerations  led  James  Otis  him- 
self to  write  in  1765  :  "  God  forbid  these  colonies  should  ever  prove  unduti- 
ful  to  their  mother  country.  .  .  .  Were  the  colonies  left  to  themselves  to- 
morrow, America  would  be  a  mere  shamble  of  blood  and  confusion,  before 
little  petty  states  could  be  settled." 


RELATION  TO  ENGLISH   REFORM  191 

"really."  That  situation  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  great 
Whig  leaders  there ;  and  the  contention  between  King  George's 
government  and  the  colonies  became  intermingled  with  a  struggle 
for  the  reform  of  parliament  at  home.  Extension  of  the 
franchise  and  reapportionment  of  the  representation  had  been 
demanded  vehemently  for  some  time.  If  the  demand  of  the 
Americans  regarding  taxation  and  representation  was  granted, 
then  it  would  not  be  possible  for  the  government  much  longer 
to  refuse  the  demand  for  representation  by  English  cities 
like  Manchester,  and  parliament  would  have  to  be  reformed. 

But  this  was  just  what  George  III  dreaded.  King  George * 
thought  it  his  duty  to  recover  the  kingly  power  that  had 
vanished  since  the  English  Revolution.  To  do  this,  he  must 
be  able  to  control  parliament.  The  easiest  way  to  control 
parliament  was  to  secure  his  own  appointees  in  that  body  from 
rotten  and  pocket  boroughs.  In  a  reformed  parliament,  this 
would  no  longer  be  possible.  These  considerations  led  the 
King  to  throw  his  influence  in  with  his  ministers  at  a  critical 
time  in  the  dispute,  and  so  turn  the  constitutional  wrangle 
with  the  colonies  into  war.  For  that  result  the  King  was 
largely  responsible.  Says  Fiske,  "  He  was  glad  to  force  on  the 
issue  in  America  rather  than  in  England,  because  it  would  be 
comparatively  easy  to  enlist  British  local  feeling  against  the 
Americans  as  a  remote  set  of  '  rebels '  .  .  .  and  thus  obscure 
the  real  nature  of  the  issue." 2 

1  An  American  writer  says  well  of  George  III  (Ford,  American  Politics, 
344) :  "  In  his  private  life  he  exactly  fulfilled  the  popular  ideal  of  a  good 
ruler.  In  an  age  when  society  was  recklessly  dissolute,  he  was  chaste  in 
conduct,  temperate  in  diet,  and  simple  in  manners.  While  irreligion 
abounded,  he  kept  a  virtuous  home,  whose  days,  beginning  with  family 
prayer,  were  passed  in  laborious  performance  of  duty."  King  George  was 
exceedingly  conscientious,  and  exceedingly  wrong-headed  and  narrow-minded. 
He  was  a  good  man  and  a  bad  king. 

2  The  student  should  read  Fiske's  treatment,  American  Revolution,  I,  43-45. 
Just  how  far  the  policy  of  parliament  and  King  in  driving  America  into 

war  was  supported  by  English  public  opinion,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  There 
were  no  adequate  agencies  then  for  the  expression  of  public  opinion.  After 
war  had  begun,  and  especially  after  America  had  been  joined  by  France  and 


192  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

The  American  Revolution  is  seen  imperfectly,  if  it  is  looked  upon 
solely  as  a  struggle  between  England  and  America.  It  was  a  strife  of 
principles.  It  was  part  of  a  thousand-year-long  contest  between  the 
English-speaking  people  and  their  kings  for  more  and  more  political 
liberty.  In  1776  the  most  advanced  part  of  that  people  lived  on  this  side 
of  the  Atlantic.  The  popular  claims  were  made  here,  and  the  struggle 
was  fought  out  here ;  but  in  many  ways  the  Revolution  was  a  true  civil  war, 
A  large  portion  of  the  Americans  were  not  in  favor  of  fighting,  and  a 
large  portion  of  Englishmen  were  glad  that  America  did  fight. 

This  element  found  expression  even  within  parliament.  The  resolution 
of  Patrick  Henry  declaring  that  the  attempt  to  tax  America,  if  successful, 
would  result  in  the  ruin  of  British  liberty  also,  was  echoed  by  the  great 
speech  of  William  Pitt,  when  he  "rejoiced'1  that  America  had  resisted, 
and  declared  that  victory  over  the  colonies  would  be  of  ill  omen  for  Eng- 
lish liberty.  "  America,  if  she  fell,  would  fall  like  the  strong  man  :  she 
would  embrace  the  pillars  of  the  state,  and  pull  down  the  constitution 
along  with  her."  When  troops  were  sent  to  Boston  in  1774,  the  Earl  of 
Rockingham  and  other  Whig  lords  presented  a  protest  to  be  inscribed  on 
the  journals  of  parliament,  and  the  Duke  of  Richmond  broke  out:  "I 
hope  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  that  the  Americans  may  resist  and  get 
the  better  of  the  forces  sent  against  them."  Charles  Fox,  a  Whig  leader, 
spoke  of  Washington's  first  defeat  as  "the  terrible  news  from  Long 
Island,"  and,  in  common  with  many  Whigs,  repeatedly  called  the 
American  cause  "the  cause  of  liberty."  All  this  gave  some  color  to 
the  Tory  claim,   when  the  war  had  failed,  that  the   failure  was  due 


other  ancieut  enemies  of  England,  there  is  no  question  but  that  the  English 
nation  stood  enthusiastically  with  the  government.  But  during  the  preceding 
constitutional  agitation,  a  large  part  of  English  society  sided  with  the  colo- 
nies. John  Adams,  writing  in  July,  1774,  said  :  "If  the  sense  of  the  whole 
empire  could  be  fairly  collected,  it  would  appear,  I  believe,  that  a  great  major- 
ity would  be  against  taxing  us  with  or  without  our  consent.  ...  It  is  verrj 
certain  that  the  sense  of  parliament  is  not  the  sense  of  the  empire."  Franklin, 
whose  judicial  temper  and  long  residence  in  England  made  him  an  even  better 
judge,  took  the  like  ground,  as  late  as  October,  1775:  "  I  am  persuaded  the 
body  of  the  British  people  are  our  friends  ;  but  they  are  changeable,  and  by 
your  lying  gazettes  may  soon  be  made  our  enemies."  As  late  as  1782,  only 
four  months  before  peace  was  made,  the  younger  William  Pitt  asserted  in 
parliament  that  if  the  House  of  Commons  had  not  imperfectly  represented  the 
nation,  it  would  never  have  been  possible  to  carry  on  that  "most  accursed, 
wicked,  barbarous,  cruel,  unjust,  and  diabolical  war." 


DEMOCRATIC  UPHEAVAL  IN  AMERICAN  SOCIETY     193 

to  the  way  in  which  the  Whigs  had  thwarted  and  vexed  the  government, 
—  "to  the  support  and  countenance  given  to  Rebellion  within  this  very 
iHouse." 

J.37.  Social  Unrest  in  the  Colonies.  —  There  are  two  aspects  to  the 
Revolution.  The  movement  for  independence  was  intertwined 
with  a  social  upheaval  within  American  society.  The  rejec- 
tion of  external  English  authority  receives  chief  attention ;  and 
so  it  is  sometimes  said  that  the  term  "revolution"  is  not  a  fit 
name  for  the  movement.  But  that  name  certainly  does  apply 
to  this  internal  change.     The  social  unrest  had  three  phases. 

a.  In  nearly  all  the  colonies,  a  group  of  families  —  special 
pets  of  the  crown  or  of  the  proprietor  —  monopolized  office, 
influence,  and  special  privilege.  Other  rival  families  (like  the 
Livingstones  and  Schuylers  in  New  York)  felt  aggrieved,  and 
therefore  were  perhaps  more  inclined  to  the  movement  for 
independence. 

b.  The  western  sections  of  many  colonies  (notably  in  Penn- 
sylvania and  the  Carolinas,  but  also,  in  some  degree,  in  Vir- 
ginia, Massachusetts,  and  New  Hampshire)  felt  themselves 
oppressed  by  the  older  sections.  The  inhabitants  of  the  new 
western  counties  sometimes  differed  from  their  eastern  breth- 
ren in  religion  or  even  in  race  (§  124)  ;  and  they  were  not  given 
their  fair  representation  in  the  colonial  legislature  which  taxed 
and  governed  them,  —  but  which  sometimes  failed  to  protect 
them  against  Indians.  Sheriffs  and  other  officials  were  often 
non-residents,  appointed  from  the  eastern  counties.  Law 
courts  also  were  controlled  by  the  older  sections ;  and  in  these 
western  districts  they  met  at  long  intervals  and  at  long  dis- 
tances from  much  of  the  population.  And  fees  exacted  for 
court  services  and  by  all  these  appointed  officers  seemed  ex- 
orbitant, and  were  sometimes  made  so  by  disreputable 
trickery.1  The  western  settlers  were  usually  more  democratic 
than  the  older  sections ;  and  their  unrest  helped  not  only  to 
support  the  agitation  for  independence,  but  also,  when  inde- 

1  A  certain  Edmund  Fanning,  a  Yale  graduate,  was  appointed  Register  for 
the  county  of  Orange,  in  western  North  Carolina,  in  1763.    It  was  currently 


194  CAUSES  OF  THE   REVOLUTION 

pendence  was  secured,  to  make  the  new  States  much  more  demo- 
cratic than  the  colonies  had  been. 

In  North  Carolina,  after  several  years  of  serious  friction,  the  oppressed 
pioneers  set  up  a  revolutionary  organization  in  1769,  known  as  committees 
of  "Regulators,"  to  prevent  collection  of  taxes.  The  eastern  counties, 
which  controlled  the  legislature,  raised  an  army,  and,  in  1772,  ended  the 
war  of  the  "Regulation  "  after  a  bloody  campaign.  The  Regulation  vms 
not  directed  in  any  way  against  England,  and  must  not  be  regarded  as  an 
opening  campaign  of  the  Revolution.  Indeed,  the  militia  that  restored 
oppression  was  the  militia  which  three  years  later  rose  against  England. 
The  defeated  "Regulators,"  refusing  to  join  their  past  oppressors,  became 
Tories,  almost  to  a  man.  But  if  the  internal  conflict  could  have  been  de- 
layed three  or  four  years,  the  Westerners  would  no  doubt  have  dominated 
the  Revolution  itself  in  their  State. 

That  was  what  happened  in  Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania  also  was  on 
the  verge  of  civil  war ;  but,  happily,  internal  conflict  was  postponed 
long  enough  so  that  in  the  disorders  of  the  general  movement  against 
England,  the  western  radicals,  with  their  sympathizers  elsewhere  in  the 
colony,  found  opportunity  to  seize  the  upper  hand.  In  Pennsylvania,  the 
Revolution  was  a  true  internal  revolution.  Old  leaders  were  set  aside  ; 
the  franchise  was  extended  to  the  democratic  element,  at  the  same  time 
that  large  numbers  of  the  old  conservative  classes  were  indirectly  disfran- 
chised ;  and  a  new  reapportionment  brought  the  democratic  West  into 
power.  In  most  of  the  colonies  north  of  the  Carolinas,  a  like  influence 
was  felt  in  some  degree. 

c.  Even  in  the  older  sections  new  men  and  a  more  demo- 
cratic portion  of  society  came  to  the  front.  Especially  in  the 
years  1774-1775,  the  weight  in  favor  of  resistance  to  English 

reported  that  he  was  impecunious  when  he  received  the  appointment,  and  that 
he  accumulated  £10,000  in  two  years  by  extortion.  The  following  verses 
were  current  as  early  as  1765. 

"When  Fanning  first  to  Orange  came, 

He  looked  both  pale  and  wan ; 

An  old  patched  coat  upon  his  back, 

An  old  mare  he  rode  on. 
Both  man  and  mare  warn't  worth  five  pounds, 

As  I've  been  often  told ; 
But  by  his  civil  robberies 
He's  laced  his  coat  with  gold." 
The  Regulators  at  one  time  dragged  Fanning  from  the  courthouse  by  the 
heels  and  flogged  him,  and  at  a  later  date  burned  his  house. 


DEMOCRATIC  UPHEAVAL  IN  AMERICAN  SOCIETY    195 

control  was  often  cast  by  a  "union  of  mechanics/'  as  in 
Charleston  and  Philadelphia,  against  the  more  conservative 
tendencies  of  the  aristocratic  merchants  and  professional  men. 
The  debt  America  owes  for  her  independence  to  these  pred- 
ecessors of  the  trade-unions  has  been  scantily  acknowledged. 
And,  quite  as  important,  it  is  owing  to  these  nameless  working- 
men,  and  to  the  democratic  frontier  communities,  that  the  accom- 
panying internal  "  revolution  "  extended  the  franchise  and  did 
away  with  the  grossest  forms  of  Wliite  servitude. 

Aristocratic  patriots,  like  John  Adams,  if  they  were  not 
to  fail,  had  to  accept  the  aid  not  only  of  the  artisans,  but  also 
of  classes  below  them,  which  had  not  even  possessed  the 
franchise,  —  but  which  in  times  of  disorder  often  seized  it.1 
In  Virginia,  this  democratic  result  was  least  noticeable ;  be- 
cause in  that  colony  the  aristocratic  gentry,  almost  to  a  man, 
took  the  patriot  side  and  so  maintained  their  leadership  (al- 
though even  there  it  was  the  solid  support  of  the  western 
counties  which  made  it  possible  for  Thomas  Jefferson  to  cany 
his  sweeping  reforms  and  change  the  face  of  Virginian  society 
in  the  midst  of  the  foreign  war).2  But  in  New  England,  the  old 
aristocracy  were  largely  Tories,  and  were  driven  out.  New 
England  became  more  democratic,  as  a  result  of  the  war,  partly 
because  of  a  new  assertion  of  democracy,  but  partly  because  of 
this  removal  of  the  aristocracy. 

Strange  as  it  seems  to  us,  one  of  the  characteristics  of  colonial  society 
was  laziness.  Observers  so  unlike  as  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  agree  in 
ascribing  this  quality  to  their  countrymen  ;  and  foreign  visitors  were  at 
one  in  dwelling  upon  it  as  an  American  trait.     Within  forty  years  after 

1  In  many  elections  to  early  revolutionary  conventions  and  congresses,  the 
disfranchised  classes  voted,  sometimes  on  explicit  invitation  of  the  revolution- 
ary committees  and  sometimes  because  it  was  not  easy  or  desirable  to  stop 
them.  In  many  cases,  the  new  State  governments  found  it  necessary  to 
recognize  the  power  which  had  had  so  much  to  do  with  making  them.  It  is 
said  that  the  records  of  the  Massachusetts  towns  in  the  early  Revolution  years 
show  a  marked  increase  of  illiteracy,.—  token  of  the  lower  social  standing  of 
the  new  men  who  were  coming  into  control  of  town  government. 

2  §  252. 


196  CONSTITUTIONAL  AGITATION 

the  Revolution,  this  characteristic  had  been  replaced  by  that  restless, 
pushing,  nervous,  strenuous  activity  which  has  ever  since,  in  the  eyes  of 
all  peoples,  been  the  distinguishing  mark  of  American  life.  One  great 
factor  in  that  tremendous  and  sudden  change  in  a  people's  character  was  the 
Revolution,  because  it  opened  opportunities  more  equally  to  all,  and  so  called 
forth  new  social  energies.1    This  perhaps  is  its  chief  justification. 


<zt 


IV.     FROM   COLONIES   TO   THE   UNITED   STATES 
A.    Constitutional  Agitation 


138.  First  Lessons  in  Resistance :  Repeal.  —  The  Stamp  Act 
became  law  in  March  and  was  to  go  into  effect  in  November. 
The  news  reached  the  colonies  in  April  and  May.  A  lull  fol- 
lowed. Governor  Hutchinson  of  Massachusetts  wrote  that  the 
Act  was  " received  with  decency"  and  would  "execute  itself." 
Even  Otis  declared  it  to  be  the  "  duty  of  all  humbly  ...  to 
acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  supreme  legislature."  And 
Franklin  wrote  home,  —  thinking  chiefly,  it  would  seem,  of  the 
money  burden,  —  "We  might  as  well  have  hindered  the  sun's 
setting.  .  .  .    Since  it  is  down  ...  let  us  make  as  good  a  night 


1  An  American  writer  began  to  see  this  truth  as  early  as  1789  (Source 
Book,  No.  145) . 

Englishmen  of  that  day  sometimes  believed  sincerely  that  the  Revolu- 
tion was  the  work  of  a  group  of  "  soreheads."  George  Washington  as 
a  youth  had  been  refused  a  coveted  commission  in  the  British  Army.  Sam 
Adams'  father  had  been  ruined  by  the  wise  British  veto  of  a  proposed 
Massachusetts  "  Land  Bank."  The  older  Otis  had  failed  to  secure  an  appoint- 
ment on  the  Massachusetts  Bench.  Alexander  Hamilton  was  a  penniless  and 
briefless  law  student,  with  no  chance  for  special  advancement  unless  by  fish- 
ing in  troubled  waters.  All  this,  of  course,  as  an  explanation  of  the  part 
played  by  these  men,  was  as  absurd  as  was  the  view  of  many  Americans 
that  high-minded  men  like  Chief  Justice  Oliver  and  Governor  Hutchinson  of 
Massachusetts  were  Loyalists  simply  in  order  to  cling  to  office  and  salary. 
But  had  the  British  charge  been  true,  what  greater  condemnation  could  be 
devised  for  the  old  colonial  system  than  that  George  Washington,  under  it, 
could  not  get  a  petty  lieutenant's  appointment,  and  that  a  genius  like  Hamil- 
ton had  practically  no  chance  for  advancement  unless  taken  up  by  some  great 
gentlemen  ?  Such  a  system  needed  overthrowing  in  the  interest,  not  of  these 
individuals,  but  of  society  as  a  whole. 


RESISTANCE   TO  THE   STAMP  ACT  197 

of  it  as  we  can.     We  may  still  light  candles.     Frugality  and 
industry  will  go  a  great  way  toward  indemnifying  us." 1 

But  while  the  old  leaders  thus  sought  to  reconcile  themselves 
to  the  law,  popular  discontent  was  smoldering;  and  soon  a 
new  leader  came  forward  to  fan  it  into  flame.  May  29,  in  the 
Virginia  House  of  Burgesses  (sitting  in  committee  of  the  whole), 
Patrick  Henry  moved  a  set  of  seven  resolutions  denouncing  the 
Stamp  Act.  Henry  had  appeared  in  the  Assembly  for  the  first 
time  only  nine  days  before;  and  in  the  "most  bloody  debate" 
that  followed  he  was  ridiculed  and  threatened  by  "all  the 
cyphers  of  the  aristocracy." 2  Through  the  cordial  support  of 
the  democratic  western  counties,  however,  the  resolutions  were 
approved,  and  the  next  day  the  first  five  passed  the  House  in 
regular  session,  though  only  by  a  majority  of  one.  One  day 
later  (the  last  day  of  the  session),  Henry,  having  started  home, 
the  fifth  resolution  —  the  most  important  of  the  five  —  was 
expunged  from  the  record  by  vote  of  the  Burgesses.  But 
meantime  the  whole  seven,  as  originally  approved  in  committee, 
had  been  published  to  the  world  as  the  work  of  the  Assembly ; 
and  these  resolutions  "  rang  the  alarm  bell  for  the  continent." 

The  sixth  and  seventh  resolutions  (never  really  adopted)  asserted  that 
the  colonists  were  "not  bound  to  yield  obedience  to  any  law  "  that  so 
imposed  taxation  upon  them  from  without,  and  denounced  any  one  who 
should  defend  such  taxation  as  an  "  enemy  to  his  majesty's  colony." 
These  were  the  clauses  that  sanctioned  forcible  resistance.  The  fifth 
declared  that  every  attempt  to  vest  power  to  tax  the  colonists  in  "any 
persons  whatsoever"  other  than  the  colonial  representative  Assemblies 
"  has  a  manifest  tendency  to  destroy  British  as  well  as  American  freedom." 
It  was  in  the  debate  upon  this  resolution  that  Henry  startled  the  House 
by  his  famous  warning  from  history.  "Tarquin  and  Caesar,"  cried  his 
thrilling  voice,  "had  each  his  Brutus;  Charles  the  First,  his  Cromwell; 
and  George  the  Third" — here  he  was  interrupted  by  cries  of  Treason  ! 
Treason  !  from  the  Speaker  and  royalist  members,  but  "  rising  to  a  loftier 


1  Franklin  even  solicited  the  English  government  to  appoint  his  friends 
as  stamp  distributors  in  the  colonies. 

2  Thomas  Jefferson,  a  young  law  student,  stood  in  the  door,  and  has  left  us 
his  later  recollections  of  the  struggle.  The  resolutions  are  in  the  Source  Book. 


198  CONSTITUTIONAL  AGITATION 

attitude,' '  with  flashing  eye,  the  orator  continued  his  sentence,  —  "may 
profit  by  their  example.     If  this  be  treason,  make  the  most  of  it." 

On  the  day  that  Henry  moved  his  resolutions,  the  Massa- 
chusetts Assembly  invited  the  legislatures  of  the  other  colonies 
to  send  "committees"  to  a  general  meeting  at  New  York  in 
October.     At  first  the  suggestion  was  ignored ;  but  in  August 


'LCC< 


ilYc  V afar i 
^m,  titiV  Jjlcu^  Mud  M&i — 

(jhktr  jkh-yuMiv  Uwju  Caw-  <yl— 

yfiJU  $**#>)    fa****)  ^fyjtjUf., 

!a _- 


Handbill  posted  in  New  York  by  the  Sons  of  Liberty. 
(From  O'Callagiian's  Documents.) 

and  September  (as  public  feeling  mounted  under  the  stimulus 
of  the  Virginia  resolutions),  colony  after  colony  named  dele- 
gates, and  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  was  assured.  Fervently 
protesting  loyalty  to  the  crown,  that  meeting  drew  up  a  noble 
Declaration  of  Eights  and  a  group  of  admirable  addresses  to 
crown  and  parliament.  It  helped,  mightily,  to  crystallize 
public  opinion,  and  to  give  dignity  to  the  agitation  against 
the  law. 

Meanwhile,  payment  of  debts  to  British  creditors  was   gen- 


RESISTANCE   TO   THE   STAMP  ACT 


199 


erally  suspended,1  and  local  associations  pledged  themselves  to 
import  no  British  goods  until  the  law  should  be  repealed. 
More  violent  resistance  was  taken  care  of  by  secret  societies 
known  as  Sons  of  Liberty.  Soon  these  organizations  grew  bold 
enough  to  make  public  their  membership  and  program.  They 
took  for  their  special  function  to  compel  compliance  with  the 
non-importation  agreements  and  to  terrorize  the  stamp  dis- 
tributors.    In  various  places,  the  Tories  were  brutally  handled. 


•nwrOy.M^j,,  176*.  THE  NUMB.  n9J. 

PENNSYLVANIA  JOURNAL. 

A  n  d 

WEEKLY    ADVERTISER. 


EXPIRING:    In  Hopes  of  a  Rcfiii-TecHon  to  Life  again. 


WfonytoU  obltedfbeartheBurthen,  »u» thought « eiprffa***^  ^^TL  «»»»y  »f  »»»"»  *■>■ 
(o  Kouaint  myH^|«>«To|.awhU8.inord.r«^ib«rato.wl»l,^,«8b^'H»nJ.  that  they  would 


^H  lo  aoiuaint  my  He**- ■  to  stop  awr>:[o,  inoroer  loouiberiie,  «.**.■ ■- -o  ""--'  - — *  "—  "->J ,-=»» 

■  -ere  thiu«TheSTAMr .  gtherany Methodic*  be  (bund  to  elude  thel"""***^!  DifrlMfge  the*-  refpeZuv  Ar 

■  SptaS ^  tin  u»  .fterlpoHJ-e  SW,,  which  iuThopea,  «2»|«W"*"V«f  *™o    *l"■»U":*,•  *»' 

■H^H  tS5-,r*rf-y«»/-to-en.|the  Urt  Repreleni*l,oni  now  made  .^nd>b*  ^'"'  P"P*~*  '«  P"*«d  •<}"«  «•"> 

■  fuinf?,(S.e/i^r0m«r|lhatAa.    me.   he  ,flfca«J.     Mean  while,!""*  r»P">    whence  m  open .ng   RrthH 

•     ••••       •».«      * 

A  Reduced  Facsimile. 

(From  Schaep  and  Westcott's  History  of  Philadelphia.    This  paper  resumed  publica- 
tion in  one  week.) 

A  Boston  mob  sacked  the  house  of  Thomas  Hutchinson ;  and 
Andrew  Oliver,  stamp  distributor  for  Massachusetts,  standing 
under  the  "  Liberty  Tree "  (on  which  he  had  been  hanged  in 


1  This  method  of  coercing  English  puhlic  opinion  was  renewed  in  the  later 
period  of  the  struggle.  In  1774  George  Washington  wrote  to  a  friend  in 
England:  "As  to  withholding  our  remittances,  that  is  a  point  on  which  I 
own  I  have  my  doubts  on  several  accounts,  but  principally  on  that  of  justice." 
Writings,  Ford's  edition,  II,  419. 


200  CONSTITUTIONAL  AGITATION 

effigy  shortly  before),  was  forced,  in  the  presence  of  two 
thousand  people,  to  read  a  solemn  "  recantation  and  detesta- 
tion "  of  his  office,  and  to  swear  it  before  a  justice  of  the 
peace.  The  law  was  to  go  into  effect  November  1.  When 
that  day  came,  every  stamp  distributor  on  the  continent  had 
been  "  persuaded  "  into  resigning,  and  no  stamps  were  to  be 
had.  After  a  short  period  of  hesitation,  the  courts  opened  as 
usual  in  most  of  the  colonies,  newspapers  resumed  publication, 
and  all  forms  of  business  ignored  the  law.1 

In  England  the  ministry  had  changed,  and  the  new  govern- 
ment seems  to  have  been  genuinely  amazed  at  the  uproar  in  the 
colonies.  It  was  deluged,  too,  with  petitions  for  repeal  from 
English  merchants,  who  already  felt  the  loss  of  remittances 
from  America ;  and,  after  one  of  the  greatest  of  parliamentary 
debates,  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed  (March  17,  1766).  No 
serious  attempt  had  been  made  to  enforce  it,  and  no  demand 
was  made  for  the  punishment  of  the  rioters,  though  the 
English  government  did  ask  the  colonial  assemblies  to  com- 
pensate the  citizens  who  had  suffered  in  the  riots, —  a  request 
which  was  attended  to  very  slowly  and  imperfectly. 

139.  Townshend  renews  the  Contest.  —  Within  a  few  months 
the  English  ministry  was  changed  once  more.  Pitt  was  the 
head  of  the  new  government ;  and,  excepting  for  Charles 
Townshend,  all  its  members  were  "  friends  of  America."  But 
Pitt  went  into  the  Lords,  as  Earl  of  Chatham,  and  was  soon 
incapacitated  for  business  by  disease.  The  ministry  was  de- 
moralized ;  and  the  brilliant  but  unscrupulous  Townshend, 
backed  by  the  King,  seized  the  leadership.  "  From  this  time," 
says  Lecky,  "  the  conduct  of  the  government  toward  America 
is  little  more  than  a  series  of  deplorable  blunders."  Town- 
shend turned  promptly  to  schemes  of  American  taxation,  and 

1  The  only  use  of  stamps  was  in  the  case  of  some  papers  for  the  clearance 
of  a  few  ships  from  the  harbor  of  Savannah.  A  curious  incident  occurred  in 
Maryland.  When  a  county  court  decided,  in  defiance  of  the  law,  to  open 
without  stamped  paper,  the  clerk  of  court  protested,  but  was  brought  to 
time  by  threat  of  imprisonment  for  contempt  of  court  ! 


THE   TOWNSHEND  AGTS  201 

in  May,  1767,  he  secured  the  enactment  of  duties  on  glass,  red 
and  white  lead,  paper,  painters'  colors,  and  tea  imported  into  the 
colonies. 

In  the  Stamp  Act  discussions,  some  Americans  had  objected  to  the 
stamp  duties  as  an  internal  tax.  Now  Townshend  cynically  professed 
his  readiness  to  give  them  the  external  taxation  they  preferred.  This 
tone  would  have  been  bad  enough  to  a  sensitive  people  flushed  with 
recent  victory;  but  two  other  features  of  the  bill  made  it  unendurable. 
Trials  for  attempted  evasion  of  the  law  were  to  take  place  before  admiralty 
courts  without  juries;  and  the  revenue  was  appropriated  to  the  payment  of 
colonial  governors  and  judges,  so  as  to  give  the  crown  complete  control  over 
such  officers.  This  law  was  a  wanton  attempt  to  demonstrate  supremacy, 
without  even  the  pretense  of  protecting  America.  It  begins  a  new  phase  of  the 
struggle. 

Townshend  died  before  his  law  went  into  effect;  but,  for 
three  years,  his  successor,  Lord  North,  maintained  his  policy. 
Meantime  the  American  continent  seethed  once  more  with 
pamphlets,  addresses,  and  non-importation  agreements.  As- 
semblies denounced  the  law ;  royal  governors,  under  strict  in- 
structions, ordered  them  to  rescind,  received  defiant  answers, 
and  replied  with  messages  of  dissolution.  Then,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  means  for  legal  action,  the  colonists  turned  again  to 
illegal  violence.  Mobs  openly  landed  goods  that  had  paid  no 
tax,  and  sometimes  tarred  and  feathered  the  customs  officials. 

To  check  such  resistance  to  law,  parliament,  in  1769,  added 
to  its  offenses  by  providing  that  a  colonist  accused  of  treason 
might  be  carried  to  England  for  trial,  —  in  flat  defiance  of  the 
ancient  English  principle  of  trial  by  a  jury  of  the  neighborhood. 
This  threat  roused  Virginia  again.  That  colony  had  not  been 
affected  directly  by  the  Townshend  commercial  regulations, 
and  the  ministry  had  been  particularly  gentle  toward  it,  hop- 
ing to  draw  it  away  from  the  rest  of  America.  But  now  the 
Assembly  unanimously  1  adopted,  and  sent  to  the  other  colonies 
for  their  concurrence,  a  series  of  resolutions  denouncing  both 


1  The  Assembly  had  progressed  since  the  close  division  on  the  Henry  reso- 
lutions four  years  before, 


202    BEGINNINGS  OF  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

the  Townshend  law  and  this  recent  enactment  as  unconstitu- 
tional and  tyrannical.1  The  governor  punished  the  House  by- 
instant  dissolution.  The  ex-burgesses  (influential  citizens  still) 
gathered  at  a  private  residence  and  signed  a  stringent  non- 
importation agreement,  which  they  recommended  to  their 
former  constituents  with  almost  the  force  of  law.2  Other 
Assemblies  copied  the  Virginia  resolutions  or  adopted  similar 
ones ;  and  non-importation  agreements,  enforced  by  semi- 
revolutionary  committees,  became  nearly  universal. 

One  incident  in  the  turmoil  of  the  period  deserves  special  attention. 
Two  regiments  bad  been  sent  to  Boston,  in  the  fall  of  1768,  to  overawe 
that  turbulent  community.  This  quartering  of  soldiery  upon  the  town 
in  time  of  peace,  not  for  protection,  but  for  intimidation,  was  one  more 
infringement  of  fundamental  English  liberties.  Incessant  bickerings  fol- 
lowed. Town  officials  quarreled  with  the  governor,  while  the  towns- 
people and  the  soldiers  squabbled  or  indulged  in  fisticuffs  in  the  streets. 
The  troops  were  subjected  to  constant  and  bitter  insult ;  and  on  the  even- 
ing of  March  .5, 1770,  came  the  long-delayed  collision.  Soldiers  and  people 
had  been  called  into  the  streets  by  an  alarm  of  fire.  Various  fracases  oc- 
curred. In  particular,  a  sentinel  on  duty  was  pelted  with  epithets  and 
snowballs.  Six  or  seven  of  his  companions,  under  an  officer,  came  to  his 
rescue.  One  of  them,  hit  by  a  club,  shot  an  assailant,  and  immediately  the 
rest  of  the  squad,  believing  an  order  to  fire  had  been  given,  discharged 
a  volley  into  the  crowd.     Five  persons  were  killed  and  six  injured. 

The  next  day,  on  the  imperative  demand  of  a  crowded  town  meeting, 
and  as  the  only  way  to  prevent  an  organized  attack  by  the  citizens  upon 
the  troops  (with  the  horrible  slaughter  sure  to  follow),  Governor 
Hutchinson  removed  the  regiments  to  the  castle  on  the  island.  The 
troops  had  behaved  well  for  many  months,  under  intense  provocation, 
and  are  not  seriously  to  be  blamed.3  The  mob,  no  doubt,  deserved  more 
blame.  But  the  chief  condemnation  falls  upon  the  British  ministry  which 
had  deliberately  created  the  situation  that  made  this  "Boston  Massacre" 
inevitable. 

1  Nicholas,  one  of  the  Virginia  leaders,  declared  that  the  new  law  was 
"  fraught  with  worse  evils  than  the  Stamp  Act,  by  as  much  as  life  is  more 
precious  than  property  "  ;  and  George  Washington  affirmed  that  this  touched 
a  matter  "  on  which  no  one  ought  to  hesitate  to  take  up  arms." 

2  Extracts  from  all  these  Virginia  proceedings  are  in  the  Source  Book. 

3  Some  months  later,  the  soldiers  were  tried  before  a  Boston  jury.  John 
Adams   and  Josiah   Quincy,  leading  patriots,  volunteered  as  their  counsel, 


^  COMMITTEES  OF  CORRESPONDENCE  203 

140.  First  Revolutionary  Organization :  Committees  of  Cor- 
respondence. —  The  Townshend  Acts  were  a  failure.  They  had 
driven  the  colonies  to  the  verge  of  rebellion,  while  each  penny 
collected  under  them  had  cost  the  English  treasury  a  shilling,1 
and  English  merchants  were  suffering  keenly  from  the  colo- 
nial non-importation  policy.  On  the  day  of  the  Boston  Mas- 
sacre, Lord  North  moved  the  repeal,  except  for  the  insignificant 
tax  on  tea,  giving  notice  also  that  the  government  would  lay 
no  more  taxes  in  America.  The  tea  tax  was  kept,  at  the 
King's  insistence,  —  to  mark  the  principle  of  parliamentary 
supremacy. 

The  old  navigation  acts  (including  the  objectionable  Sugar 
Act)  remained  in  force,  however ;  and  instead  of  seeking  real 
reconciliation,  the  British  ministry  took  just  this  time  to 
hector  the  various  colonial  Assemblies  by  arbitrary  "  orders  " 
on  many  different  subjects.  When  the  Assemblies  protested, 
the  governors  (under  strict  instructions)  dissolved  them ;  and, 
at  other  times,  their  usual  liberties  (such  as  the  choice  of 
speakers  and  place  of  meeting)  were  needlessly  infringed. 

Daring  the  distractions  that  followed,  America  learned  to  or- 
ganize itself  in  a  semi-revolutionary  manner.  Since  her  Assembly 
was  no  longer  free,  Massachusetts  effected  an  extra-legal  union 
of  her  towns,  through  Sam  Adams'  town  committees  of  corre- 
spondence (1772);  and  Virginia  inaugurated  the  even  mightier 
task  of  binding  the  colonies  into  a  permanent  union  by  intercolo- 
nial committees  of  correspondence  (1773). 

Committees  of  correspondence  here  and  there  had  been  a 
familiar  feature  of  the  agitation;  but  now  appeared  standing 
committees  to  take  the  place  of  the  legal  organs  of  public 


risking  gallantly,  not  merely  their  personal  popularity,  but  their  public 
influence  in  the  crisis  which  they  had  so  much  at  heart.  Two  of  the  soldiers 
were  punished  lightly  for  manslaughter ;  the  others  were  acquitted. 

1  It  was  shown  in  the  Commons  that  the  total  proceeds  for  the  first  year 
were  less  than  £16,000,  while  the  customs  expense  had  eaten  up  all  but  £295 
of  that  amount,  and  the  extraordinary  military  expenses  in  America  in  the 
same  period  had  been  £170,000. 


204    BEGINNINGS  OF  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

opinion.  On  the  motion  of  Samuel  Adams,1  in  November,  1772, 
a  Boston  town  meeting  appointed  a  committee  of  twenty-one  to 
maintain  correspondence  with  the  other  towns  of  the  province 
upon  the  infringements  of  their  liberties  (Source  Book).  The 
two  hundred  other  towns  responded  promptly  by  appointing 
similar  committees,  and  soon  a  vigorous  correspondence  was 
going  on  throughout  this  complicated  network. 

Adams'  task  was  difficult  because  of  the  great  number  of 
local  units  in  Massachusetts.  It  was  relatively  easy,  when 
need  arose,  to  organize  a  union  of  the  few  counties  in  Virginia 
or  Maryland,  led  as  they  were  by  a  few  prominent  families.  But 
after  all,  each  colony  was  fairly  certain,  sooner  or  later,  to  find 
a  way  to  express  itself  through  some  revolutionary  organization. 
It  was  not  so  certain  that  the  indispensable  task  would  be  ac- 
complished of  uniting  the  thirteen  colonies  by  an  efficient  revo- 
lutionary machinery.  Here  the  first  step  was  taken  by 
Virginia. 

The  occasion  was  the  attempt  to  arrest,  for  trial  in  England, 


1  Sam  Adams  was  the  first  American  political  "boss,"  in  the  better  sense 
of  the  word.  He  played  with  unfailing  skill  upon  the  many  strings  of  the 
town  meeting,  working  his  will  through  committees  and  faithful  lieutenants. 
He  has  been  called  "the  wedge  that  split  England  and  America  asunder." 
Dr.  Howard  says  of  him  {Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,  253,  254) :  "He  pos- 
sessed precisely  the  qualities  which  belong  to  a  consummate  revolutionary 
leader.  The  very  narrowness  of  view  which  often  prevented  him  from  seeing 
the  merits  of  his  adversaries  only  added  to  this  power.  He  had  unbounded 
faith  in  democratic  self-government  .  .  .  and  was  almost  fanatical  in  his  zeal 
for  constitutional  liberty.  He  had  indomitable  will,  great  tenacity  of  purpose, 
and  unflinching  courage.  ...  He  was  poor  in  worldly  goods,  simple  in  man- 
ner and  dress,  and  able  to  enter  sympathetically  into  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
of  plain  men.  Much  of  his  power  lay  in  his  ability  to  persuade  and  lead  the 
fishermen,  rope-makers  and  ship-masters  of  Boston.  .  .  .  [He]  had  a  rare 
talent  for  practical  politics.  He  displayed  a  capacity  for  organization,  some- 
times lapsing  into  intrigue,  and  a  foresight  sometimes  sinking  into  cun- 
ning." 

Every  student  should  read  Dr.  Hosmer's  delightful  biography  of  Samuel 
Adams  (Statesmen  Series) .  In  a  much  earlier  essay  (in  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies),  Dr  Hosmer  gave  to  his  hero  the  title  by  which  he  is  best 
known,  "  The  Man  of  the  Town  Meeting." 


CONGRESSES,   PROVINCIAL  AND   CONTINENTAL     205 

the  Rhode  Islanders  suspected  of  burning  the  Gaspee.1  As  in 
1769,  upon  the  same  principle,  the  Virginia  Assembly  champi- 
oned American  rights  in  ringing  resolutions  (March  12,  1773)  ; 
but  this  time  it  went  further.  fThe  Burgesses  appointed  a 
standing  committee  for  intercolonial  correspondence,  and  by 
formal  letter  invited  all  other  Assemblies  in  America  to  appoint 
similar  instruments  of  intercourse  (Source  Book).  Within 
three  months,  committees  had  been  set  up  in  half  the  colonies, 
and  ere  long  the  machinery  was  complete.2  July  2,  the  New 
Hampshire  Gazette  said  of  this  movement :  — 

"  The  Union  of  the  Colonies  which  is  now  taking  place  is  big  with  the 
most  important  Advantages  to  this  Continent.  .  .  .  Let  it  be  the  study 
of  all  to  make  the  Union  firm  and  perpetual,  as  it  will  be  the  great  Basis 
for  Liberty  and  every  public  Blessing  in  America." 

141.  Coercion:  Provincial  Congresses  and  the  Continental  Con- 
gress.—  The  next  step  toward  revolutionary  government  was 
to  develop  from  the  local  committees  a  Provincial  Congress, 
in  colony  after  colony,  and  from  the  intercolonial  committees 
of  the  continent  a  Continental  Congress.  This  was  brought 
about  in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1774,  as  Mie  result  of  three  events, 
—  the  attempt  of  the  ministry  to  force  taxed  tea  down  the 

1  A  revenue  schooner  off  the  Rhode  Island  coast.  "  Her  commander,"  says 
Lecky,  "had  become  extremely  obnoxious  to  the  colony,  in  which  smuggling 
was  one  of  the  most  flourishing  .  .  .  trades."  One  evening,  in  pursuit  of  a 
smuggler's  boat,  the  Gaspee  ran  aground.  It  was  then  boarded  by  an  armed 
mob,  led  by  a  prominent  merchant.  The  commander  was  shot,  the  crew  put 
on  shore,  and  the  vessel  burned.  The  English  government  created  a  special 
commission  to  secure  the  offenders  for  trial  in  England ;  but,  though  the  actors 
were  well  known  to  large  numbers  of  people,  no  evidence  against  them  could 
be  secured.  That  fact  prevented  a  possible  collision ;  for  Stephen  Hopkins, 
Chief  Justice  of  the  colony,  declared  he  would  commit  to  prison  any  officer 
who  should  attempt  to  remove  a  citizen  from  the  limits  of  the  commonwealth. 

2  Writers  very  commonly  speak  as  if  this  creation  of  intercolonial  com- 
mittees was  a  mere  extension  of  the  Massachusetts  infracolonial  committees. 
This  grossly  obscures  the  facts.  To  use  town  committees  to  unite  towns 
which  always  had  had  an  Assembly  to  unite  them  was  one  thing :  to  find  any 
machinery  to  unite  colonies  which  had  always  refused  to  be  united  was  a  dif- 
ferent thing.  The  similarity  of  name  ought  not  to  blind  the  student  who  can 
get  back  of  words  to  things. 


206    BEGINNINGS  OF  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

throats  of  the  colonists,  the  rather  animated  protest  of  the  Bos- 
ton Tea  Party,  and  the  punishment  of  Boston  by  the  Port  Bill. 

(1)  Ever  since  the  repeal  of  the  other  Townshend  duties,  the  animosi- 
ties of  the  conflict  had  been  concentrated  on  the  one  taxed  article,  tea.1 
For  six  years  the  colonists,  for  the  most  part,  had  done  without  that 
luxury  except  for  the  smuggled  article.  In  April  of  1773  Lord  North 
tried  an  appeal  to  American  avarice.  Tea  paid  a  tax  of  a  shilling  a 
pound  on  reaching  England,  and,  under  the  Townshend  Act,  threepence 
more  on  importation  into  America.  Parliament  now  arranged  that  a 
rebate  of  the  English  tax  (and  of  some  other  burdens)  should  be  given 
merchants  who  reexported  to  America, — so  that  the  colonists  would  pay 
only  the  threepence  tax,  and  would  get  their  tea  cheaper  than  Englishmen 
could, — and  cheaper  than  it  could  be  smuggled.2  Ships  loaded  with 
this  gross  bait  were  at  once  dispatched  to  the  chief  American  ports. 

(2)  The  colonists  were  righteously  indignant  at  the  palpable  attempt 
to  trick  them  into  paying  a  tax  by  appealing  to  their  cupidity,  and  every- 
where forcible  resistance  kept  the  tea  out  of  the  market.  At  Charleston 
the  consignees  were  forced  to  resign,  and  it  was  stored,  until  seized  by  the 

1  At  the  close  of  a  delightful  summary  which  all  students  should  read, 
Dr.  Tyler  says  (Literary  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  I,  246-253) : 
"  The  latent  comedy  of  the  situation  flashes  upon  us  now  from  the  grotesque 
prominence  then  given,  in  the  politics  of  the  British  empire,  to  this  coy  and 
peace-loving  tea  plant.  By  a  sort  of  sarcasm  of  fate,  it  happened  that  be- 
tween the  years  1770  and  1775,  this  ministress  of  gentleness  and  peace,  —  this 
homelike,  dainty,  and  consolatory  herb  of  Cathay,  —  came  to  be  regarded, 
both  in  America  and  England,  as  the  one  active  and  malignant  cause  of  nearly 
all  the  ugly  and  disastrous  business.  .  .  .  The  innocent  shrub  .  .  .  seldom 
receives  in  our  literature  for  those  years  any  less  lurid  description  than  .  .  . 
1  pestilential  herb.'  Just  south  of  the  Potomac,  a  much-excited  young  woman, 
addicted,  as  she  supposed,  to  poetry  as  well  as  to  politics,  sends  forth  to  the 
world  a  number  of  stanzas  entitled  'Virginia  Banishing  Tea,'  wherein  that 
valorous  colony  exclaims,  — 

"  '  Begone,  pernicious,  baleful  Tea, 

With  all  Pandora's  ills  possessed  ; 

Hyson,  no  more  beguiled  by  thee 

My  noble  sons  shall  be  oppressed.'  " 
Tory  punsters,  on  the  other  hand,  were  inclined  to  liken  the  whole  disturb- 
ance to  "  a  tempest  in  a  teapot." 

2  The  saving  to  the  colonies  from  the  exceedingly  complex  provisions  of 
the  various  tea  tax  laws  was  far  greater  than  would  appear  from  the  simpli- 
fied statement  in  the  text.  The  best  authority  upon  the  matter  estimates 
that  six-shilling  tea  in  England  could  be  sold  in  the  colonies  for  three  shil- 
lings (Farrand,  "  Taxation  of  Tea,"  in  American  Historical  Review,  III,  267). 


CONGRESSES,  PROVINCIAL  AND   CONTINENTAL    207 

Revolutionary  government  in  1776.  At  New  York,  Annapolis,  and  Phila- 
delphia the  authorities  were  intimidated  into  sending  the  tea  ships  back 
to  England.  But  in  Boston  the  "Tories"  were  made  of  sterner  stuff, 
and  the  clash  was  more  serious.  Governor  Hutchinson  stationed  warships 
in  the  channel  to  prevent  timid  owner  of  the  three  tea  vessels  from  send- 
ing them  away,  refusing  all  demands  of  a  series  of  threatening  town  meet- 
ings ;  and  the  customs  officials  prepared  to  land  the  tea  by  a  force  of 
marines  as  soon  as  the  legal  interval  should  expire.  Boston  exhausted 
all  means  but  actual  violence,  —  and  then  used  that  so  skillfully  as  to  avoid 
bloodshed.  At  the  last  moment,  the  final  town  meeting  resolved  itself 
into  a  band  of  Mohawks  ("with  whom,"  says  Carlyle,  "Sam  Adams 
could  speak  without  an  interpreter  "),  and,  seizing  the  vessels  before 
they  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  officials,  emptied  into  Boston  harbor 
some  ninety  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  tea  (December  16,  1773). 

(3)  The  short-sighted  English  government  now  replied  with  a  series  of 
"repressive  acts"  1  to  punish  Massachusetts.  Town  meetings  were  for- 
bidden, except  as  authorized  in  writing  by  the  governor,  and  for  business 
specified  by  him.  All  courts,  high  and  low,  with  all  their  officials,  were 
made  absolutely  dependent  upon  his  appointing  and  removing  power.  So 
far  as  the  election  of  the  Council  was  concerned,  the  charter  of  1691  was 
set  aside,  and  the  appointment  given  to  the  crown.  But  most  immediately 
effective  in  rousing  American  indignation  was  another  act  of  this  series, 
the  Boston  Port  Bill,  which  closed  the  port  of  Boston  to  commerce,  with 
provision  for  a  blockade  by  ships  of  war.  Since  the  entire  population 
depended,  directly  or  indirectly,  upon  commerce  for  their  living,  the 
town  was  threatened  with  extreme  suffering.  Food  and  fuel  at  once  be- 
came scarce  and  costly,  and  great  numbers  of  men  were  unemployed. 
The  town  authorities,  however,  set  up  various  municipal  enterprises  to 
furnish  work  and  food ;  and  all  parts  of  America  forwarded  money  and 
supplies  lavishly. 

May  12,  two  days  after  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  Port 
Bill,  the  committees  of  eight  near-by  Massachusetts  towns  met 


1  Classed  with  these  acts,  in  the  colonial  mind,  was  the  Quebec  Act,  which 
was  passed  at  the  same  time.  This  legalized  the  Catholic  religion,  and  re- 
stored part  of  the  French  law,  for  Canada,  extending  that  province  also  to 
include  the  unsettled  district  west  of  the  mountains  between  the  Ohio  and  the 
Great  Lakes.  The  purpose  of  this  legislation  was  disinterested  and  amiable. 
The  design  was  to  conciliate  the  French  settlers  (almost  the  sole  population), 
and  to  set  up  some  authority  to  deal  with  the  existing  anarchy  in  the  fur- 
trade  regions.  No  act  of  the  series,  however,  caused  more  bitter  suspicion 
among  the  English  colonies,  with  their  bigoted  fear  of  Catholicism. 


208  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

at  Boston.  This  gathering  sent  letters  to  the  correspondence 
committees  of  the  thirteen  colonies  recommending  an  absolute 
suspension  of  trade  with  Great  Britain,  and  putting  the  ques- 
tion whether  all  America  should  not  "  consider  Boston  as  suf- 
fering in  the  common  cause,  and  resent  the  injury  inflicted 
upon  her." 

The  first  official  response  came  from  Virginia.  May  24,  the 
House  of  Burgesses  set  apart  June  1  (when  the  Port  Bill  was 
to  go  into  effect)  "as  a  Day  of  Fasting,  Humiliation,  and 
Prayer,  devoutly  to  implore  the  divine  interposition  for  avert- 
ing the  heavy  Calamity  which  threatens  Destruction  to  our 
Civil  Rights,  and  the  Evils  of  civil  War,  and  to  give  us  one 
heart  and  one  Mind  firmly  to  oppose  by  all  just  and  proper 
means  every  injury  to  American  Rights."  Two  days  later  the 
governor  dissolved  the  Assembly  with  sharp  rebuke.  On  the 
following  day,  the  ex-Burgesses  met  at  the  Raleigh  Taverg, 
and  recommended  an  annual  congress  of  delegates  from  all  the 
colonies  "  to  deliberate  on  those  general  measures  which  the 
united  interests  of  America  may  from  time  to  time  require. 
A  second  meeting,  on  May  31,  called  the  Virginia  deputies  to 
meet  at  Williamsburg  on  August  1,  in  order  to  appoint  Virginia 
delegates  for  the  proposed  continental  congress  and  to  consider 
a  plan  for  non-intercourse  with  England.  The  counties  gen- 
erally ratified  this  call  by  expressly  authorizing  their  ex-Bur- 
gesses to  act  for  them  at  that  meeting,  or  by  choosing  new 
representatives  to  do  so.  Here  were  the  germs  of  revolutionary 
machinery,  county,  state,  continental. 

On  receipt  of  the  Virginia  suggestion,  the  Rhode  Island 
Assembly  appointed  delegates  for  the  general  congress  (June 
15).  Time  and  place  had  not  yet  been  named,  but  two  days 
later  the  Massachusetts  Assembly  supplied  this  omission; 
and,  before  August  20,  all  the  colonies  but  Georgia  had  chosen 
delegates  for  the  First  Continental  Congress,1  to  meet  Septem- 
ber 1  at  Philadelphia. 

1  The  story  of  the  Massachusetts  action  —  behind  locked  doors,  to  keep  out 
the  governor's    message  of  dissolution  —  should  be  a  special  report,  with 


wp 


FIRST  CONTINENTAL  CONGRESS  209 


The  "First  Continental  Congress1'  of  1774  was  not  in  any  sense  a 
government,  or  a  legislature.  Indeed,  the  name  "congress"  was  used 
to  indicate  the  informal  character  of  the  gathering.  No  governing  body 
had  ever  held  that  name.  It  was  a  meeting  for  consultation.  Its  function, 
as  Albion  Small  has  well  said,  ' '  was  not  to  express  a  sovereign  will  [as 
American  writers  have  too  often  claimed] ,  but  to  assist  in  the  development 
of  a  common  consciousness,  so  that  there  would,  by  and  by,  be  a  sov- 
ereign will  to  express."  The  meeting  did  not  pretend  to  do  more 
than  advise  and  recommend  ;  and  it  could  not  claim  more  authority, 
either  from  the  nature  of  its  appointment  or  from  the  credentials  of  its 
members. 

In  Pennsylvania,  as  in  Rhode  Island,  the  Assembly  in  regular  session 
appointed  delegates ;  but  the  appointment  lacked  the  governor's  approval 
and  so  carried  only  moral  weight.  The  Massachusetts  appointments 
lacked  the  sanction  of  either  Council  or  governor.  In  Connecticut,  the 
delegates  had  been  appointed  by  the  committee  of  correspondence  with 
the  approval  of  the  Assembly.  Of  these  elections,  those  in  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut  were  the  only  ones  that  could  claim  to  be  governmental 
acts. 

In  the  remaining  colonies  the  action  was  still  more  irregular.  The 
Delaware  Assembly,  then  in  adjournment,  met  at  the  suggestion  of  its 
speaker,  in  extra-legal  session,  to  choose  delegates.  This  meeting,  legally, 
had  no  more  weight  than  any  other  gathering  of  citizens.  In  South  Caro- 
lina, a  mass  meeting  of  people  interested,  mainly  from  Charleston,  made 
the  election.1  In  New  York,  the  city,  or  rather  part  of  its  wards,  in  an 
irregular  election,  chose  five  delegates  ;  three  other  counties  held  some 
sort  of  meetings  to  ratify  these  appointments,  and  three  more  chose  still 
other  delegates, —  in  some  cases  by  the  action  of  small  minorities  ;  2  while 
six  counties  refused  to  act  at  all.    The  delegates  from  the  remaining  six 


special  reference  to  Sam  Adams'  delicate  manipulation.  Many  Virginia 
records  are  given  in  the  Source  Book.  Indeed,  the  story  may  be  read  there 
more  fully  than  in  this  volume. 

1  This  appointment  was  afterward  given  greater  moral  weight  by  a  curi- 
ous ratification  by  the  Assembly.  That  body  had  been  summoned,  but  the 
governor  had  determined  to  dissolve  it  on  the  moment  of  its  gathering.  The 
delegates  outwitted  him,  however,  by  assembling  half  an  hour  ahead  of  the 
appointed  time.  Even  their  confirmation  carried  only  moral  weight,  since  it 
lacked  the  governor's  sanction. 

2  In  one  county  it  was  claimed  that  twenty  people,  out  of  a  thousand  free- 
holders, got  together  for  the  purpose. 


210  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

colonies  were  chosen  by  provincial  conventions.     Such  bodies  were  rep- 
resentative of  public  opinion,  but  claimed  no  governmental  position.1 

The  credentials  of  the  delegates  to  the  general  congress  cor- 
responded to  the  informal  character  of  these  bodies  that  ap- 
pointed them.  In  no  case  were  delegates  given  even  pretended 
authority  to  bind  their  colony  in  law.  The  North  Carolina 
convention  did  declare  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  province 
ought  to  be  bound  "  in  honor  "  by  the  action  of  their  delegates. 
Some  conventions  authorized  their  representatives  to  take  any 
"lawful"  action  to  secure  American  liberties  {i.e.  action  not  in 
conflict  with  existing  law).  Other  delegations  were  strictly 
enjoined  merely  "to  consult  and  advise"  with  the  delegates 
from  the  other  colonies,  and  to  agree  upon  a  plan  of  action  to 
be  reported  back  to  the  Assemblies  of  their  respective  provinces 
for  approval  or  disapproval. 

We  know  this  Congress  only  from  letters  and  later  recollec- 
tions of  its  members  and  from  some  imperfect  notes  taken  at 
the  time  by  two  or  three  delegates.  It  sat  six  weeks,  and 
was  one  of  the  two  or  three  most  notable  gatherings*  in  our 
history,  —  although,  forty  years  later,  John  Adams  described 


!The  Virginia  convention  (the  first  called,  though  not  the  first  to  meet)  is 
typical.  During  June  and  July,  according  to  the  recommendation  of  the  ex- 
burgesses,  each  Virginia  county  chose  delegates  for  the  proposed  Williams- 
burg convention.  Usually  the  men  chosen  were  the  same  who  had  served  in 
the  just-dissolved  Assembly,  and  usually,  too,  the  same  men  were  formally 
elected  as  the  county  delegates  to  a  new  Assembly  which  the  governor  had 
summoned  for  August  11.  Nearly  every  county  also  adopted  lengthy  resolu- 
tions, deserving  of  place  among  great  state  papers,  —  the  work  of  men  like 
Jefferson,  Henry,  and  Mason.  As  a  rule,  the  resolutions  formally  approved 
the  plan  for  a  general  congress,  and  instructed  the  county  delegation  to  co- 
operate at  Williamsburg  for  the  appointment  of  a  Virginia  representation. 
Most  of  them  also  recommended  to  the  Virginia  convention  a  plan  of  commer- 
cial non-intercourse  with  Great  Britain,  —  while  several  counties  ominously 
named  saltpeter  as  an  exception  to  the  articles  not  to  be  imported. 

None  of  this  first  series  of  provincial  conventions  sat  more  than  five  or  six 
days  (most  of  them  only  for  a  day) ;  and  none  of  them  took  any  action  be- 
yond appointing  delegates  to  Philadelphia  and  adopting  resolutions,  —  except 
that  one  or  two  provided  for  a  second  convention,  to  be  held  after  the  general 
congress. 


THE  ASSOCIATION  211 

it  as  "  one  third  Tories,  one  third  Whigs  and  the  rest 
Mongrels."1  The  moderate  party  (Adams'  "Tories")  de- 
sired still  to  depend  upon  peaceable  constitutional  agitation 
to  secure  redress  of  grievances.  This  element  was  led  by- 
Joseph  Galloway  of  Pennsylvania,  supported  by  John  Jay  of 
New  York  and  Edward  Rutledge  of  South  Carolina.  The 
radicals  (no  more  patriotic  or  conscientious,  but  more  daring 
and  far-seeing)  insisted  that,  as  a  prelude  to  reconciliation 
with  England,  the  ministry  must  remove  its  troops  and  repeal 
its  acts.  After  strenuous  debate,  Galloway's  proposals  were 
rejected  by  a  vote  of  six  colonies  to  Jive.  The  Congress  then 
recommended  the  radical  plan  of  a  huge  universal  boycott,  in 
the  form  of  a  solemn  Association.  The  signers  were  to  bind 
themselves  neither  to  import  any  British  goods  nor  to  export2 
their  own  products  to  Great  Britain.  To  enforce  this  agree- 
ment, efficient  machinery  was  recommended.  Every  town  and 
county  was  advised  to  choose  a  committee,  acting  under  the 
supervision  of  the  central  committee  of  its  province,  "  to  ob- 
serve the  conduct  of  all  persons,"  and  to  have  all  violations 
"published  in  the  gazette,"  that  the  foes  to  the  rights  of 
America  might  be  "universally  contemned." 


B.     English  Authority  breaks  Down 

142.  The  Association  and  Committees  of  Observation:  Party 
Lines.  —  New  York  and  Georgia  refused  to  ratify  the  Associa- 
tion. But  within  six  months  all  the  other  colonies,  either  by 
regular  Assemblies  or  by  a  second  series  of  conventions,  had 
adopted   the   plan;    and   everywhere   "committees   of  public 

1  Letter  to  Jefferson  (Jefferson's  Works,  Washington  ed.  VI,  249).  "  There 
was  not  one  member  except  Patrick  Henry,"  adds  Adams,  "who  seemed  to 
me  sensible  of  the  precipice,  or  rather  the  pinnacle,  on  which  we  stood."  The 
Source  Book  gives  also  Adams'  impressions  at  the  time. 

2  Previous  to  1744,  attempts  at  non-intercourse  had  been  restricted  to  im- 
portation, and  usually  to  a  few  taxed  articles.  Students  may  be  asked  to 
report  upon  the  other  recommendations  and  addresses  of  this  congress.  For 
its  most  important  documents,  see  Source  Book. 


212  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

safety  "  (and  sometimes  irresponsible  mobs,  claiming  the  sanc- 
tion of  such  authority)  were  terrorizing  reluctant  individuals 
into  signing.  Tar  and  feathers  and  "  the  birch  seal  "  became 
common  instruments  of  persuasion ;  and  respectable  Loyalists 
and  Moderates  complained  bitterly  that,  in  the  name  of  liberty, 
the  populace  refused  all  liberty  of  speech  or  action.  A  great 
revolution,  however  righteous,  is  sure  to  have  its  ugly  phases. 

The  precedent  for  anarchy  had  come  from  the  government,  even  in  this 
matter  of  the  Association.  Gage,  the  commander  of  the  English  forces 
in  America  and  also  the  new  governor  of  Massachusetts,  as  early  as  June 
of  1774,  had  ordered  the  arrest  as  traitors  of  all  who  signed  or  circulated 
a  non-intercourse  agreement.  This  was  while  the  boycott  was  still  a  peace- 
ful one,  —  months  before  the  action  of  the  Continental  Congress.  The 
government  disregarded  the  rights  of  the  people  under  the  law  before  the 
people  disregarded  the  law. 

Party  lines  began  to  be  drawn  more  closely.  Tlie  issue,  too, 
had  changed.  The  question,  now,  was  not  approval  or  dis- 
approval of  Parliamentary  taxation,  but  whether  resistance 
should  be  forcible.  The  radical  "  Patriots  "  were  probably  a 
minority;  but  they  were  aggressive  and  organized,  and  even- 
tually they  whipped  into  line  the  great  body  of  timid  and 
indifferent  people  without  a  positive  program.  The  revolu- 
tionary organization,  too,  fell  largely  to  the  democratic  artisan 
class.  June  1,  1774,  the  governor  of  New  York,  writing  to  the 
English  government  regarding  the  excitement  about  the  Boston 
Port  Bill,  says :  "  The  Men  who  call'd  themselves  the  Commit- 
tee [in  New  York]  —  who  acted  and  dictated  in  the  name  of 
the  People,  were  many  of  them  of  the  lower  Rank,  and  all  the 
warmest  zealots.  .  .  .  The  more  considerable  Merchants  and 
Citizens  seldom  or  never  appeared  among  them,  but,  I  believe, 
were  not  displeased  jWith  the  Clamor  and  opposition  that  was 
shown  against  internal  Taxation  by  Parliament."  And  a  few 
days  later,  a  Loyalistxgentleman  exulting  (too  soon)  over  the 
election  of  a  new  "  committee,"  says:  "The  power  ...  is  no 
longer  in  the  hands  of  Sears,  Lamb,  and  such  unimportant  per- 


NEW  GOVERNMENTS  213 

sons,  who  for  six  years  past  have  been  the  demagogues  of  a  very 
turbulent  faction." 

The  Radicals  themselves  did  not  yet  think  seriously  of  in- 
dependence. They  still  protested  enthusiastic  loyalty  to  King 
George.  They  were  ready  to  fight ;  but  only,  as  Englishmen 
had  often  fought,  to  secure  a  change  in  "  ministerial  policy." 
Meantime,  many  earnest  "  Patriots "  of  the  earlier  agitation 
now  became  "  Tories, "  rather  than  commit  themselves  to 
armed  rebellion,  and  many  were  driven  into  Loyalist  ranks  by 
repugnance  to  anarchy.1 

143.  Conventions  and  Congresses  become  Governments.  —  The 
Revolution  was  not  a  single  movement.  It  was  a  whirl  of 
thirteen  revolutions  within  a  revolution,  with  cogs  catching 
and  arcs  intersecting.     We  can  trace,  however,  a  general  trend. 

In  the  winter  and  spring  of  1775,  regular  government  passed 
into  abeyance.  In  colony  after  colony,  the  governors  refused 
to  let  the  legislature  meet,  and  the  people  refused  to  let  the 
governors'  courts  or  other  officials  act.  To  prevent  absolute 
lawlessness,  in  many  places,  county  meetings  or  local  com- 
mittees set  up  some  sort  of  provisional  government,  to  last 
until  constitutional  authority  should  again  become  effective 
"  by  the  restoration  of  harmony  with  Great  Britain."  2  During 
this  turbulent  disorder,  second  provincial  conventions  were  held 
in  several  colonies,  to  act  upon  the  recommendations  of  the 
First  Continental  Congress ;  and  some  of  these  bodies  became 
de  facto  colonial  governments?  organizing  troops,  raising  money, 
and  assuming  civil  powers  far  enough  to  alleviate  the  existing 

1  Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  140,  a  (John  Adams'  horse-jockey  client). 

2  Action  of  this  kind  in  Mecklenburg  County,  North  Carolina,  on  May  30, 
1775,  through  distorted  recollections  and  inaccurate  statements,  gave  rise, 
years  later,  to  the  curious  but  groundless  legend  of  a  Mecklenburg  "  Declara- 
tion of  Independence." 

3  Of  course  the  "  Tories  "  had  refused  to  pay  any  attention  to  the  "  illegal " 
elections  of  such  provincial  conventions.  Indeed,  in  some  cases,  they  were 
even  excluded  by  test  oaths.  In  this  way  the  Radicals  came  to  control 
the  only  governments  in  existence;  and  this  fact,  even  in  colonies  where  they 
mads  a  minority,  gave  them  a  tremendous  preponderance  in  action. 


214 


REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 


anarchy.     In  form,  their  acts  were  still  recommendations,  but 

the  local  committees  enforced  them  as  laiv. 

It  was  these  second  conventions  (except  where  the  regular 

Assemblies  could  act)  which  appointed  delegates  to  the  Sec- 
ond Continental  Con- 
gress. Between  the  elec 
tion  of  that  body  and  its 
meeting  (May  10),  Gage's 
attempt  to  seize  Massa- 
chusetts military  stores 
at  Concord  called  from 
"embattled  farmers" 
"the  shot  heard  round 
the  world "  {April  19, 
1775).  Gage  had  sown 
dragon's  teeth.  From 
New  England's  soil 
twenty  thousand  volun- 
teers sprang  up  to  besiege 
him  in  Boston.  War  had 
come. 

In  consequence,  the 
Second  Continental  Con- 
gress swiftly  hecame  a  gov- 
ernment, to  manage  the 
continental  revolution 

(§  144).     And,  during  the  summer,  a  third  lot  of  provincial 

conventions  openly  avowed  themselves  governments  for  their 


The  Concord  Minute  Man.1 


1  A  statue  by  Daniel  C.  French  at  Concord  Bridge.    On  one  face  of  the 
base  is  inscribed  a  stanza  from  Emerson's  "  Concord  Hymn  " :  — 
***** 
Here  once  the  embattled  farmers  stood 
And  fired  the  shot  heard  round  the  world. 
Across  the  stream,  in  a  curve  of  the  stone  fence,  is  the  grave   of  two 
British  soldiers,  over  which  have  been  carved  the  lines  from  Lowell*.  — 
They  came  three  thousand  miles  and  died, 
To  keep  the  Past  upon  its  throne. 


THE   CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT  215 

respective  colonies,  —  appointing  committees  of  safety  (in  place 
of  the  royal  governors,  who  had  been  set  aside  or  driven 
out),  and' themselves  assuming  even  the  forms  of  legislative 
bodies  (§  145). 

144.  Development  of  the  Central  Government.  —  The  members 
of  the  Second  Continental  Congress  had  been  elected  with 
rather  more  uniformity  than  those  of  the  First,1  and  their  in- 
structions, on  the  whole,  were  somewhat  less  carefully  limited. 
Still,  like  the  First,  they  had  been  designed  to  formulate  opinion, 
and  to  report  their  recommendations  back  to  their  colonies  for 
approval.  They  had  been  appointed  as  a  gathering  of  "  com- 
mittees," rather  than  as  a  legislature.  The  war  changed  all 
that.  A  central  government  was  imperative  ;  and  the  patriot 
party  everywhere  recognized  the  Congress  as  the  fit  agent  to 
fill  that  place.  For  the  first  five  weeks,  that  body  continued 
to  pass  recommendations  only.  But  June  15  it  began  its 
acts  of  government  by  adopting  the  irregular  forces  about 
Boston  as  a  continental  army,  and  appointing  George  Wash- 
ington commander  in  chief.  A  year  later  it  proclaimed  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Between  these  two  events  it 
had  created  a  navy,  opened  negotiations  with  foreign  states, 
issued  bills  of  credit  on  the  faith  of  the  colonies,  and 
taken  over  (from  the  old  English  control)  the  management 
of  Indian  affairs  and  the  general  post  office  system.  Its  power 
continued  to  rest  on  revolutionary  necessities,  and  on  the  in- 
formal acquiescence  of  the  people,  until  1781,  when  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  gave  it  constitutional 
sanction. 


1  The  legal  New  York  Assembly  (almost  the  only  Assembly  in  session) 
refused  by  formal  vote  to  send  delegates  (February  23) .  Previously  it  had  re- 
jected motions  even  to  consider  the  action  of  the  preceding  Continental  Con- 
gress, and  to  thank  the  New  York  delegates  for  their  part  therein.  A  motion 
to  approve  the  non-importation  policy  also  was  lost.  The  regular  government 
of  this  colony  had  now  definitely  abandoned  the  revolutionary  movement. 
This  was  the  last  Assembly  of  New  York.  Its  place  was  soon  taken  by  revo- 
lutionary conventions. 


216  REVOLUTIONARY  ORGANIZATION 

145.  The  development  of  State  governments  may  be  followed  conven- 
iently in  Massachusetts  and  Virginia.1  The  early  overthrow  of  consti- 
tutional government  in  Massachusetts  made  the  movement  peculiarly 
rapid  there.  Even  before  the  close  of  the  First  Continental  Congress, 
Massachusetts  had  a  full-grown  revolutionary  government.  The  colony 
refused  to  recognize  the  parliamentary  acts  that  set  aside  its  charter. 
Councilors,  appointed  under  those  acts,  were  forced  to  resign,  and  the 
governor-dominated  courts  were  not  permitted  to  meet.  Governor  Gage 
had  called  the  Assembly  for  October  5 ;  but  afterward,  foreseeing  hopeless 
clashes  with  it,  had  forbidden  it  to  meet.  The  members  came  together, 
however,  and  declared  themselves  a  provincial  congress  (according  to 
instructions  from  many  towns  for  just  such  a  contingency).  This  event 
marks  the  end  of  civil  government  under  the  crown  in  Massachusetts.  The 
resolutions  and  decrees  of  the  provincial  congress  (sitting  at  Concord  or 
Cambridge)  had  the  force  of  law.  That  body  prepared  the  colony  for 
war,  organizing  troops  and  providing  stores.  It  appointed  a  "  receiver 
general,"  to  whom,  instead  of  to  the  governor's  officials,  the  towns  were 
instructed  to  pay  their  State  taxes  ;  and  it  chose  a  "committee  of  safety  " 
to  act  in  place  of  the  governor. 

Subsequent  congresses  expanded  this  policy.  Soon  the  courts  of  justice 
were  reestablished  under  popular  control ;  and,  in  accord  with  advice 
requested  from  the  Second  Continental  Congress,  the  form  of  the  charter 
government  was  restored  —  as  far  as  might  be.  The  Third  Provincial 
Congress  provided  for  the  election  of  an  Assembly,  after  the  usual  method. 
That  body  organized  at  Concord,  July  19,  1775,  and  nominated  the  usual 
Council,  which  became  both  upper  House  and  executive.2  This  govern- 
ment, renewed  by  annual  elections,  was  continued  until  the  adoption  of  a 
new  constitution  in  1780. 

In  Virginia  the  Assembly  was  prevented  from  meeting  by  successive 
prorogations  ;  but  county  gatherings  in  December  and  January  (1774-5) 
approved  the  Continental  Congress  and  set  up  the  Association,  so  that  a 
second  convention  was  not  necessary  until  it  came  time  to  appoint  dele- 
gates to  the  Second  Continental  Congress.     Meantime,  however,  many 


1  Massachusetts  is  selected  because  in  the  van ;  Virginia,  because  on  the 
whole  more  typical,  and  because  she  was  the  first  State  to  adopt  a  Declaration 
of  Independence  and  a  permanent  constitution. 

2  The  charter  provided  that  the  Council  should  exercise  executive  powers 
in  case  of  the  absence  of  the  governor  and  lieutenant  governor ;  and  the  colony 
now  determined  to  regard  these  officers  as  constructively  absent,  "until  a 
governor  of  his  majesty's  appointment  will  consent  to  govern  .  .  .  according 
to  the  charter." 


STATE   GOVERNMENTS  217 

counties,  on  their  own  initiative,  organized  and  armed  a  revolutionary 
militia.1 

The  First  Convention  (August,  1774  ;  §  141)  had  authorized  its  chair- 
man to  call  a  second  when  desirable.  On  such  call,  the  Second  Conven- 
tion met,  March  20,  1775.  It  passed  only  "  recommendations  "  in  form  ; 
but  it  did  adopt  and  unify  the  revolutionary  militia  system  inaugurated 
by  the  counties,  and  in  this  important  matter,  at  least,  acted  as  a  de  facto 
government.  It  sat  only  eight  days  ;  but  it  recommended  the  counties  at 
once  to  choose  delegates  to  a  Third  Convention,  to  represent  the  colony 
for  one  year. 

Governor  Dunmore  forbade  the  elections  as  "acts  of  sedition"  ;  but 
they  passed  off  with  regularity.  Meantime,  the  governor  called  the  long- 
adjourned  Assembly,  to  consider  a  proposal  from  Lord  North,  intended  to 
draw  Virginia  away  from  the  common  cause.  Instead  of  this  program,  the 
Assembly  gave  formal  sanction  to  all  the  acts  of  the  continental  congresses 
and  the  Virginia  conventions.  In  the  squabbles  that  ensued,  Dunmore 
took  refuge  on  board  a  British  man-of-war,  to  prevent  his  person  being 
seized.  The  Assembly  strenuously  "deplored"  that  their  governor 
should  so  "desert"  the  "loyal  and  suffering  colony,"  and  adjourned 
June  24.     This  ended  the  last  vestige  of  royal  government  in  Virginia. 

Three  weeks  later,  the  Third  Convention  gathered  at  Richmond  (out  of 
range  of  guns  from  warships),  and  promptly  assumed  all  powers  and  forms 
of  government.  It  gave  all  bills  three  readings,  and  enacted  them  as  ordi- 
nances;2 and  it  elected  an  executive  (consisting  of  a  committee),  and 
appointed  all  other  needful  officials.  In  the  winter  of  1776,  it  dissolved, 
that  a  new  body,  fresher  from  the  people,  might  act  on  the  pressing 
questions  of  independence  and  of  a  permanent  government  (§  148).     


C.     A  Union  of  Independent  States 


/j 


146.  Growth  of  the  Idea  of  Independence.  —  The  Loyalists 
early  began  to  accuse  the  Patriots  of  aiming  at  independence, 
or  at  least  to  warn  them  that  soon  they  would  find  themselves 
doing  so.  But,  until  some  months  after  Lexington,  the  radicals 
vehemently  and  unanimously  disavowed  such  "  villainy."  Otis, 
Dickinson,  Hamilton,  in  their  printed  pamphlets,  all  denounced 
any  thought  of  independence  as  a  crime.  Continental  congresses 
and  provincial  conventions  solemnly  repeated  such  disclaimers. 

1  Source  Book,  No.  132,  for  Washington's  county. 

2  Letter  of  George  Mason,  in  Source  Book,  No.  133,  c. 


218  THE   REVOLUTION 

In  October,  1774,  Washington  wrote  that  independence  was 
"  not  desired  by  any  thinking  man  in  all  North  America,"  and 
in  the  following  March,  in  London,  Franklin  declared  th»t  in 
America  he  had  never  heard  a  word  in  its  favor  "from  any 
person  drunk  or  sober."  Two  months  later  still,  after  Lexing- 
ton, Washington  soothed  the  apprehensions  of  a  Loyalist  friend 
with  the  assurance  "  that  if  the  friend  ever  heard  of  his  [Wash- 
ington's] joining  in  any  such  measures,  he  had  leave  to  set  him 
down  for  everything  wicked  "  ;  and  June  26, 1775,  Washington 
assured  the  New  Yorkers  that  he  would  exert  himself  to  estab- 
lish "  peace  and  harmony  between  the  mother  country  and  the 
colonies."  In  September,  1775,  Jefferson  was  still  "  looking 
with  fondness  towards  a  reconciliation,"  and  John  Jay  asserts 
that  not  until  after  that  month  did  he  ever  hear  a  desire  for  inde- 
pendence from  u  an  American  of  any  description."  Indeed,  in 
February,  1776,  when  Gadsden  in  the  South  Carolina  convention 
expressed  himself  in  favor  of  independence,  he  roused  merely 
a  storm  of  dismayed  protest  and  condemnation,  and  no  support. 
For  months  after  Bunker  Hill,  American  chaplains,  in  public 
services  before  the  troops,  prayed  for  King  George ;  and,  for 
long,  Washington  continued  to  refer  to  the  British  array  merely 
as  the  "ministerial  troops."  As  late  as  March,  1776,  Mary- 
land instructed  her  delegates  not  to  consent  to  any  proposal 
for  independence.1 

All  this  was  honestly  meant ;  but  the  years  of  debate  over 
grievances  had  sapped  the  ties  of  loyalty  more  than  men 
really  knew,  and  a  few  months  of  war  hurried  the  process.  In 
the  fall  of  1775,  the  King  refused  contemptuously  even  to  receive 
a  petition  for  reconciliation  from  Congress ;  and  soon  afterward, 
the  ministry  arranged  to  send  to  America  an  army  of  "  Hessians  " 
hired  out,  for  slaughter,  by  petty  German  princelings.  More- 
over, it  became  apparent,  that,  to  resist  England,  the  colonies 
must  have  foreign  aid;  and  no  foreign  power  could  be  expected 
to  give  us  open  aid  while  we  remained  English  colonies. 


i  Source  Book,  No.  139. 


UNION  AND  INDEPENDENCE  219 

Thus,  unconsciously,  American  society  was  ready  to  change 
front  on  the  matter  of  independence.  Then  came  Thomas  ' 
Paine' s  daring  and  trenchant  Common  Sense.  This  fifty- 
page  publication,  in  terse  phrase  and  clarion  tone,  spoke  out 
what  the  community  hailed  at  once  as  its  own  unspoken 
thought.  One  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  copies  sold  in 
three  months,  —  one  for  every  three  families  in  America ;  and 
both  sides  ascribed  to  it  an  influence  almost  magical. 

Common  Sense  appeared  in  January,  1776.  It  was  the  first  public 
argument  for  independence.  At  first  the  author's  name  was  not  given, 
and  it  was  commonly  attributed  to  one  of  the  Adamses  or  to  Franklin. 
Paine  was  a  poor  English  emigrant  whom  Franklin  had  befriended  for  the 
"genius  in  his  eyes."1  It  is  impossible  to  take  space  here  to  give  any 
idea  of  the  convincing  argument  of  the  booklet,  but  a  few  lines  may  rep- 
resent the  incisive  style. 

"The  period  of  debate  is  closed.  Arms  .  .  .  must  decide.  ...  By  re- 
ferring the  matter  from  argument  to  arms,  a  new  era  in  politics  is  struck. 
...  All  plans  .  .  .  prior  to  the  nineteenth  of  April  are  like  the  almanacs 
of  last  year.  ...  All  talk  of  filial  affection  for  England  has  become 
archaic.  .  .  . 

"  Where,  say  some,  is  the  king  of  America  ?  I'll  tell  you,  friend.  He 
reigns  above,  and  doth  not  make  havoc  of  mankind,  like  the  royal  brute 
of  Britain.  ...  A  government  of  our  own  is  our  natural  right.  ...  Ye 
who  oppose  independence  now,  ye  know  not  what  ye  do  :  ye  are  opening 
a  door  to  eternal  tyranny.  .  .  . 

"  0  ye  that  love  mankind  !  Ye  that  dare  oppose  not  only  tyranny,  but 
the  tyrant,  stand  forth  !  Every  spot  of  the  Old  World  is  overran  with 
oppression.  Freedom  has  been  hunted  round  the  globe.  Asia  and  Africa 
have  long  expelled  her.  Europe  regards  her  like  a  stranger  ;  and  England 
has  given  her  warning  to  depart.  O,  receive  the  fugitive  and  prepare  in 
time  an  asylum  for  mankind." 

147.  Excursus :  the  Loyalists.  —  The  Revolution,  in  im- 
portant aspects,  was  more  like  a  civil  war  than  even  the  great 
"  Civil  War  "  of  1861.  In  that  sectional  struggle,  each  section 
was  essentially  united  within  itself ;  but  in  1776,  every  com- 
munity was  divided,  neighbor  warring  upon  neighbor.  In  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Georgia,  it  seems  certain  that  the 


1  He  had  been  in  America  only  thirteen  months. 


220  THE   REVOLUTION 

Loyalists  were  a  majority ;  and  on  the  whole  they  made  at 
least  every  third  man  in  the  colonies.  To  this  million  of  Ameri- 
cans, independence  meant  disloyalty.  The  decision  for  in- 
dependence gave  inspiration  and  energy  to  the  Patriots,  but 
it  cost  them  some  good  men.  Many  dropped  from  the  patriot 
cause,  rather  than  reverse  long-professed  convictions  on  this 
matter.  Society  moved  rapidly,  and  not  all  could  keep  the  same 
pace.  In  July,  1776,  the  lines  were  draivn  irretrievably.  Men 
whom  that  month  found  standing  where  Washington  or  Jefferson 
had  stood  seven  or  eight  months  before,  were  "  Tories." 

The  Tories  represented  respectability  and  refinement.  They  came 
from  (i)  the  old  official  classes,  who  naturally  had  the  viewpoint  of  the 
government ;  (2)  commercial  and  capitalistic  classes,  always  timid  re- 
garding change  ;  (3)  the  professional  classes,  especially  the  clergy  out- 
side the  Puritan  ranks  ;  and  (4)  that  vast  well-content  part  of  the 
population  which  is  always  conservative  in  temper,  but  which  (as  Dr. 
Tyler  points  out  in  this  connection)  has  its  full  share  of  "moral  scru- 
pulousness, personal  purity,  and  honor."1 

Prominent  in  the  Tory  ranks  were  great  numbers  of  college  graduates. 
In  1778  Massachusetts  banished  310  leading  Tories,  —  more  than  sixty 
of  them  Harvard  graduates.  Says  Moses  Coit  Tyler  {Literary  History 
of  the  Revolution,  I,  303)  :  "To  any  one  familiar  with  the  history  of 
colonial  New  England,  that  list  of  men  denounced  to  exile  and  loss  of 
property  on  account  of  their  opinions,  will  read  almost  like  the  beadroll 
of  the  oldest  and  noblest  families  concerned  in  the  founding  and  upbuild- 
ing of  New  England  civilization,"  and,  says  Lecky  {England  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  III,  418) :  "  There  were  brave  and  honest  men  in 
America  who  were  proud  of  the  great  free  empire  to  which  they  belonged, 
and  who  had  no  desire  to  shrink  from  the  burden  of  maintaining  it  .   .  . 

1  The  way  in  which  prominent  South  Carolina  families  divided  is  illustrated 
by  the  following  extract  from  a  much  longer  list  in  McCrady's  South  Carolina. 
"  William  Bull  (Lieutenant  Governor)  stood  for  the  king;  but  his  nephews, 
Stephen  and  William  Bull,  and  William  Henry  Drayton,  joined  the  Revolu- 
tionists. Rawlins  Lowndes  .  .  .  we^  with  the  Revolutionary  party ;  but  his 
brother  remained  loyal  to  the  Crown.  Four  Pinckneys  .  .  .  were  prominent  in 
the  Revolutionary  cause;  but  [a  fifth]  is  enrolled  as  a  loyal  subject.  William 
.  .  .  and  Alexander  Moultrie  served  ...  in  the  continental  army;  but  their 
brother  John  remained  Lieutenant  Governor  of  Florida  under  the  King.  .  .  ." 


THE   STATES  AND  THE   UNION  221 

t 
and  who,  with  nothing  to  hope  for  from  the  crown,  were  prepared  to 
face  the  most  brutal  mob-violence  and  the  invectives  of  a  scurrilous  press, 
to  risk  their  fortunes,  their  reputations,  and  sometimes  their  lives,  in 
order  to  avert  civil  war  and  ultimate  separation.  Most  of  them  ended 
their  days  in  poverty  and  exile  ;  and,  as  the  supporters  of  a  beaten  cause, 
history  has  paid  but  a  scanty  tribute  to  their  memory,  but  they  comprised 
some  of  the  best  and  ablest  men  America  has  ever  produced." 

148.    Making  a  Constitution  for  an  Independent  State.  —  The 

access  of  disorder  that  followed  Lexington  led  several  colonies 
to  apply  to  Congress  for  counsel.  In  reply,  Congress  "  recom- 
mended "  the  provincial  convention  of  New  Hampshire 

•'  to  call  a  full  and  free  representation  of  the  people  .  .  .  [to]  establish 
such  a  form  of  government  as  in  their  judgment  will  best  produce  the 
happiness  of  the  people  and  most  effectually  secure  peace  and  good  order 
in  that  province,  during  the  continuance  of  the  present  dispute  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  colonies." 

Under  such  advice,  early  in  1776,  New  Hampshire  and  South 
Carolina  set  up  provisional  written  constitutions.  These  docu- 
ments, however,  did  not  imply  independence.  They  pro- 
claimed their  temporary  character,  and  referred  always  to  the 
commonwealths  not  as  States,  but  as  "  colonies." 

May  15,  1776,  Congress  took  more  advanced  action.  It 
recommended  the  "  assemblies  and  conventions  "  of  all  colonies, 
"  where  no  government  sufficient  to  the  exigencies  of  their 
affairs  hath  been  hitherto  established,  to  adopt  such  a  govern- 
ment as  shall,  in  the  opinion  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  best  conduce  to  the  happiness  and  safety  of  their  con- 
stituents in  particular,  and  of  America  in  general.'7  Two  days 
later,  in  a  letter  to  his  wife,  John  Adams  hailed  this  action 
(for  which  he  had  been  the  foremost  champion)  as  "  a  total, 
absolute  independence  .  .  .  for  such  is  the  amount  of  the 
resolve  of  the  15th."  1 

One  colony  at  least  had  not  waited  for  this  counsel.  The 
Fourth  Virginia  convention  met  ^ay  6, 1776,  and  turned  at  once 
to  the  question  of  independence  and  a  constitution.     The  only 

1  See  Source  Book  for  this  significant  letter,  and  for  the  resolution. 


222  THE   REVOLUTION 

• 
difference  of  opinion  was  as  to  method  of  procedure.1  Should 
Virginia,  standing  alone,  declare  herself  an  independent  State 
and  frame  a  constitution  for  herself  ?  Or  should  she  try  to  get 
the  Continental  Congress  to  make  a  declaration  and  to  suggest 
a  general  model  of  government  for  all  the  Colonies  ?  Formal 
plans  were  presented,  representing  each  of  these  views.  On  the 
fifteenth,  after  much  debate,  the  convention  determined  upon  a 
plan  between  the  two  extremes.  Unanimously  it  instructed  its 
representatives  in  Congress  to  move  immediately  for  a  general 
Declaration  of  Independence  there;  and  it  appointed  committees  to 
proceed  at  once  to  draw  up  a  constitution  for  Virginia  herself  as 
an  independent  State. 

This  convention,  like  the  Second  and  Third  (§145),  was  a  govern- 
ing body,  not  purely  a  "constitutional  convention"  in  the  modern  sense. 
Indeed,  as  a  whole,  it  had  no  direct  authorization  from  the  people  to  form 
a  constitution,  although  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  expected  to  take 
up  the  matter.  The  call  for  election  had  not  mentioned  this  great  purpose, 
but  some  counties  had  instructed  their  delegates  to  work  for  independence 
and  for  the  adoption  of  a  new  "frame  of  government";  and  the  leaders 
had  been  in  correspondence  regarding  a  constitution.  A  plan  from 
Patrick  Henry  appeared  in  print  while  the  elections  were  in  progress. 

The  decisive  vote  was  taken  on  the  same  day  that  the  Continental 
Congress  made  its  recommendation  at  Philadelphia  for  new  State  govern- 
ments.  A  common  doctrine  that  the  States  adopted  constitutions  only  on 
the  recommendation  of  Congress  is  plainly  false . 

The  bill  of  rights  ( the  first  part  of  the  constitution  )  was  reported  by 
the  committee  May  27,  and  adopted  by  the  convention  June  12.  The 
"frame  of  government''''  was  adopted  June  29.  To  it  at  the  last  moment 
was  prefixed  a  third  part  of  the  constitution,  a  declaration  of  independence 
for  Virginia,  earlier  than  the  Continental  Declaration  (Source  Book). 

149.  The  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights 2  was  the  first  document  of  the  kind 
in  our  history,  and  it  remains  one  of  our  greatest  state  papers.     Three 

!On  May  10,  Charles  Lee  wrote  to  Washington,  "A  noble  spirit  possesses 
the  Convention.  They  are  almost  unanimous  for  independence,  but  differ  as 
to  the  mode.     Two  days  will  decide." 

2  Source  Book,  No.  136.  The  class  should  study  it,  and  compare  the  opening 
passages  with  corresponding  parts  of  Jefferson's  Declaration  of  Independence. 
See  also  comment  there  on  the  common  neglect  of  the  debt  owed  by  American 
political  theory  to  the  document. 


VIRGINIA  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  223 

or  four  States  at  once  copied  its  characteristic  parts  almost  verbatim, 
and  all  the  bills  of  rights  of  the  revolutionary  period  were  profoundly  in- 
fluenced by  it.  Several  provisions,  such  as  those  against  excessivt  bail, 
cruel  or  unusual  punishments,  arbitrary  imprisonment,  and  the  like,  go 
back  to  ancient  English  charters,  even  for  their  wording.  Recent  grievances 
suggested  certain  other  clauses,  —  the  prohibition  of  "  general  warrants," 
the  insistence  upon  freedom  of  the  press,  and  the  emphasis  upon  the  idea 
that  a  jury  must  be  "of  the  vicinage."  Patrick  Henry  contributed  a 
noble  assertion  of  the  principle  of  religious  freedom. 

But  the  peculiar  significance  of  this  brief  but  immortal 
document  is  found  in  a  few  paragraphs  not  yet  referred  to. 
English  bills  of  rights  had  insisted  upon  the  historic  rights  of 
Englishmen,  but  had  said  nothing  of  any  rights  of  man;  they 
had  protested  against  specific  grievances,  but  had  asserted  no 
general  principles.  Such  principles,  however,  had  found  fre- 
quent expression  in  English  literature ;  and  the  writings  of 
Locke  and  of  less  famous  but  more  democratic  English  pam- 
phleteers of  the  seventeenth  century  had  made  them  household 
phrases  with  American  political  thinkers.1  Now,  these  funda- 
mental principles,  upon  which  American  government  rests, 
were  incorporated  by  George  Mason  in  this  Virginia  bill  of 
rights,  —  a  fact  which  distinguishes  that  document  from  all 
previous  governmental  documents  of  the  English-speaking  race. 
Two  or  three  weeks  later,  Jefferson  incorporated  similar  prin- 
ciples, clothed  in  phrase  both  more  eloquent  and  more  judicious, 
in  the  opening  paragraphs  of  the  Continental  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence,—  whence  mainly,  in  later  years,  they  have  reached 
American  thought. 

Among  the  principles  of  the  Virginia  document  are  the  statements :  — 
"  That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free2  and  independent,  and  have 
certain  inherent  rights.   ..." 


1  As  to  French  influence,  cf .  Modern  History,  §  303,  note. 

2  According  to  Edmund  Randolph,  the  phrase  equally  free  was  objected  to 
as  inconsistent  with  slavery  and  likely  to  involve  civil  tumult.  The  objectors 
were  quieted  with  the  amazing  assurance  "that  slaves,  not  being  constituent 
members  of  our  society,  could  never  pretend  to  any  benefit  from  such  a 


224  THE   REVOLUTION 

"That  all  power  is  vested  in,  and  consequently  derived  from,  the 
people. 

"  That  government  is,  or  ought  to  be,  instituted  for  the  common  benefit 
of  the  people  .  .  .  and  that  when  any  government  shall  be  found  inade- 
quate ...  to  these  ends,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an  indubi- 
table, inalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish  it.  .   .  . 

"That  no  free  government,  or  the  blessings  of  liberty,  can  be  pre- 
served .  .   .  but  .  .  .  by  frequent  recurrence  to  fundamental  principles.*' 

150.  The  Declaration  of  Independence.  —  Soon  after  the  Vir- 
ginia instructions  of  May  15  reached  Philadelphia,  Eichard 
Henry  Lee,  one  of  the  Virginia  delegation  in  the  Continental 
Congress,  moved  that  the  united  colonies  be  declared  "free 
and  independent  States  "  (June  7).  After  brief  debate,  action 
was  postponed  until  July  1,  to  permit  uninstructed  delegates 
to  consult  their  colonial  Assemblies. 

North  Carolina  had  already  authorized  its  delegates  "to  join  in  "  such 
a  vote,  if  the  matter  came  up  ;  while  Massachusetts,  Khode  Island,  and 
Georgia  had  passed  vague  resolutions  which  might  be  construed  as  author- 
ization (the  last  State,  however,  by  a  very  irregular  convention).  Eight 
colonies  had  expressed  no  approval,  and  at  least  three  of  them  had  in 
most  emphatic  terms  forbidden  their  delegates  to  participate  in  any 
such  action.  During  the  month  of  June,  however,  the  Maryland,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  Assemblies  rescinded  these  prohibitions,  and 
Assemblies  or  Congresses  in  the  other  colonies  gave  the  necessary  authori- 
zation,—  except  in  New  York  and  South  Carolina.  The  delegates  from 
New  York  wrote  home  (June  10)  for  instructions ;  but  the  Third  New 
York  Convention  replied  (on  motion  of  John  Jay)  that  the  existing 
convention,  having  no  mandate  from  the  people  of  the  colony  on  the 
question,  could  not  presume  to  give  authority.  A  new  provincial 
congress  was  called  at  once,  to  act  upon  the  matter ;  but  it  did  not 
assemble  until  July  9,  and  so  the  New  York  delegates  at  Philadelphia 


maxim."  After  all,  the  Fathers  enunciated  their  splendid  principles  with 
mental  reservations:  or  rather,  let  us  say,  their  great  declarations  were 
history  only  in  part,  and  in  part  prophecy.  In  Massachusetts,  similar  words 
in  her  bill  of  rights  of  1780  were  held  by  her  courts,  four  years  later,  to  have 
abolished  slavery  within  her  limits,  although  that  result  had  not  beeu  thought 
of  when  the  clause  was  adopted.  In  Virginia  the  matter  never  got  into  the 
courts ;  and  if  it  had,  the  decision  would  surely  have  been  in  accordance  with 
the  understanding  in  the  convention.  — 


THE   STATES  AND  THE   UNION  225 

took  no  part  in  the  votes.  The  South  Carolina  delegates  fell  back  upon  a 
clause  in  their  instructions  authorizing  any  action  for  the  common  good,  — 
though  the  provincial  congress  that  gave  those  instructions  had  not  thought 
of  independence.  ♦ 

Meantime  the  Continental  Congress  appointed  a  committee 
to  prepare  a  fitting  and  formal  Declaration  for  use  if  Lee's 
motion  should  prevail.  Happily,  it  fell  to  Thomas  Jefferson 
actually  to  pen  the  document;  and  his  splendid  faith  in 
democracy  and  his  devotion  to  human  rights  gave  it  a  convinc- 
ing eloquence  which  has  made  it  ever  since  a  mighty  power  in 
directing  the  destiny  of  the  western  world.1 

On  July  1,  Lee's  motion  was  again  taken  up.  The  first  vote 
was  divided ; 2  but  on  the  following  day,  the  motion  was  ap- 
proved by  twelve  States.3  The  formal  Declaration,  as  reported 
from  the  committee,  was  then  considered  in  detail,  and  adopted 
on  July  4.  On  the  9th,  the  Fourth  New  York  Congress  gave 
the  assent  of  that  State.  August  2,  the  official  copy  of  the 
Declaration,  engrossed  on  parchment,  was  signed  by  the  mem- 
bers of  Congress  then  present. 


$#. 


D.     The   Thirteen   State   Constitutions 


{The  following  sections  (151-155)  may  well  be  discussed  with  books 
open.  Students  should  not  be  held  responsible  for  details,  but  they  should 
get  strong  general  impressions.) 

1  This  does  not  mean  that  Jefferson  coined  new  thought  or  new  phrases. 
Most  of  the  document  was  already  common  property,  as  to  both  ideas  and  ex- 
pression. Jefferson's  fervor  and  literary  skill  added  just  the  touch  needed  to 
perfect  the  form.  Both  the  committee  and  Congress  made  slight  changes; 
but  the  Declaration  as  we  have  it  is  essentially  Jefferson's  original  draft, 
written  without  reference  "  to  book  or  pamphlet." 

2 Conservative  Patriots,  like  Dickinson,  still  opposed  the  motion.  On  the 
first,  nine  States  voted  yes ;  New  York  did  not  vote ;  Delaware  was  evenly 
divided ;  and  Pennsylvania  and  South  Carolina  voted  no. 

3  John  Adams  regarded  this  vote,  with  its  affirmative  gains,  as  the  decisive 
step.  On  the  3d  of  July  he  wrote  to  his  wife:  "The  second  day  of  July, 
1776,  will  be  the  most  memorable  epocha  in  the  history  of  America.  I  am  apt 
to  believe  that  it  will  be  celebrated  by  succeeding  generations  as  the  great 
aniversary  festival.  It  ought  to  be  commemorated  as  the  day  of  deliverance, 
by  solemn  acts  of  devotion  to  God  Almighty.    It  ought  to  solemnized  with 


226  THE   REVOLUTION 

151.  Conditions:  the  War  in  '76. —  Military  events  fti  '76  were 
indecisive.  In  the  spring,  after  nearly  a  year's  siege,  Wash- 
ington forced  the  English  out  of  Boston ;  but  he  was  unable 
to  prevent  their  occupying  New  York.  After  the  defeats  of 
Long  Island  and  White  Plains,  his  sadly  lessened  troops  fled 
through  New  Jersey  into  Pennsylvania ;  but  a  few  weeks  later 
he  cheered  the  Patriots  by  the  dashing  winter  victories  of 
Trenton  and  Princeton.1 

Meantime  the  revolution  in  governments  went  on.  In  the 
six  months  between  the  Declaration  cf  Independence  and  the 
Battle  of  Trenton,  seven 2  States  followed  Virginia  in  adopting 
written  constitutions.  Georgia  was  hindered  for  a  time  by  the 
predominance  of  her  Tories ;  and  New  York,  because  she  was 
held  by  the  enemy.  These  States  followed  in  '77.3  The  re- 
maining three  States  had  already  set  up  provisional  govern- 
ments (§§  145,  148)  which,  in  Massachusetts  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, remained  in  force  for  some  years.  South  Carolina, 
however,  substituted  a  regular  constitution  in  '78, 

pomp  and  parade,  with  shows,  games,  sports,  guns,  hells,  bonfires,  and 
illuminations,  from  one  end  of  this  continent  to  the  other,  from  this  time 
forward  forevermore." 

1  In  the  darkest  of  these  days,  Thomas  Paine  again  thrilled  the  people 
with  his  pamphlet,  The  Crisis,  which  was  a  mighty  factor  in  rilling  the 
levies  and  dispelling  despondency.  Pages  of  it  were  on  men's  tongues,  and 
one  passage  has  passed  into  a  byword,  —  "  These  are  the  times  that  try  men's 
souls." 

2  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  it  is  true,  each  merely  reenacted  its 
colonial  charter  as  a  "  constitution  "  of  a  "  State  ";  and  New  Jersey,  in  like 
fashion,  converted  a  provisional  constitution,  adopted  as  late  as  July  2,  into 
a  permanent  one,  by  the  change  of  a  few  words. 

3  Thanks  to  the  political  instinct  of  the  people,  the  institution  of  these  new 
governments,  even  in  the  midst  of  war  and  invasion,  was  quietly  accomplished, 
and  civil  order  was  soon  on  a  far  sounder  basis  than  at  any  preceding  time 
since  the  Boston  Port  Bill. 

Regarding  the  transition  from  colony  to  commonwealth  in  Virginia,  Jeffer- 
son wrote  (August  13,  77),— "The  people  seem  to  have  laid  aside  the  mo- 
narchic, and  taken  up  republican  government,  with  as  much  ease  as  would 
have  attended  the  throwing  off  an  old  and  putting  on  a  new  suit  of  clothes." 
Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  138,  for  John  Adams'  account  of  the  proceedings  in 
South  Carolina. 


THE   STATES  AND  THE   UNION  227 

152.  "Constitutional  Conventions"  and  "Ratification." —  Until  we 
come  to  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  in  the  Ws,  no  one  of  these 
constitutions  was  adopted  and  ratified  in  a  modern  manner.  The  conven- 
tions or  congresses  had  to  carry  on  the  revolutionary  government,  as  well 
as  make  constitutions.  In  some  cases  they  had  no  authorization  for  con- 
stitution making,  and  in  others,  only  a  vague  one,  as  in  Virginia  (§  148). 
Some  of  the  constitution-making  bodies,  indeed,  had  been  elected  months 
before  there  was  any  thought  of  independence. 

For  the  most  part,  too,  the  constitutions  were  adopted  just  as  ordinary 
statutes  were  enacted,  and,  to  our  thought,  would  have  been  no  more 
binding.  None  of  the  first  eleven  constitutions  were  submitted  to  a  refer- 
endum. Jefferson  urged  such  action  in  Virginia,  arguing  that  otherwise 
the  constitution  would  not  really  be  fundamental,  but  could  be  modified, 
like  any  other  statute,  by  subsequent  legislatures,  but  this  doctrine  was 
too  advanced  to  command  sympathy.1  When  the  New  York  provincial 
congress  of  June,  '76,  published  its  call  for  a  new  congress  to  act  upon  in- 
dependence and  the  adoption  of  a  form  of  government,  the  statement 
aroused  apprehensions  in  the  "union  of  mechanics"  in  New  York  City. 
"We  do  not  believe,"  said  their  address  of  remonstrance,  "  that  it  was 
intended  for  future  delegates  or  yourselves  to  be  vested  with  the  power  of 
framing  a  new  constitution  for  this  colony,  and  that  its  inhabitants  at 
large  should  not  exercise  the  right  God  has  given  them.  .  .  .  Many  believe 
that  we  will  not  be  allowed  to  approve  or  reject  the  new  constitution,  [and] 
they  are  terrified  at  the  consequences.  ..."  This  remonstrance  was  not 
regarded ;  and  the  mechanics  refrained  from  pressing  it  further  in  the 
face  of  war.  It  is  the  only  popular  demand,  however,  for  a  constitutional 
referendum,  outside  of  New  England;  and,  significantly  enough,  these 
mechanics  in  New  York  City  were  largely  of  New  England  birth  or 
descent.2 

Here,  better  possibly  than  anywhere  else  in  our  history,  is  seen  the 
supreme  educational  value  of  the  New  England  town  meeting  in  politics. 
The  sovereignty  of  the  people,  and  practical  devices  for  exercising  that 
sovereignty,  were  understood  in  New  England  by  the  ordinary  artisan 
and  farmer,  as  elsewhere  only  by  lonely  thinkers  like  Jefferson. 


1  The  highest  Virginia  court  afterward  upheld  the  constitution  of  76  as 
amendable  only  by  a  duly  called  convention  for  that  express  purpose.  But 
the  highest  court  of  South  Carolina  in  '80  declared  the  constitutions  of  '76  and 
'78  in  that  State  to  be  ordinary  laws,  so  far  as  authority  and  power  of  altera- 
tion were  concerned.  This  logical  decision  compelled  that  State  to  adopt  a 
third  constitution,  by  a  true  convention,  in  1783. 

2  Cf .  §§  137,  c,  142,  on  the  democratic  influence  of  the  artisan  class. 


228  THE   REVOLUTION 

No  reference  to  the  people,  it  is  true,  was  taken  in  the  case  of  continu- 
ing the  old  governments  of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  because  it  was 
held  that  the  people  had  already  sanctioned  them  by  long  acquiescence. 
But  in  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  where  new  constitutions  were 
to  be  adopted,  there  was  no  serious  thought  of  acting  without  popular 
referendum.  Indeed,  that  was  not  enough.  The  people  of  these  States 
demanded  a  popular  initiative,  also,  in  the  matter,  and  a  true  constitu- 
tional convention,  —  as  will  appear  in  the  following  paragraphs. 

Throughout  the  summer  of  '76,  Massachusetts  papers  and  pamphlets 
teemed  with  projects  for  a  new  government.1  September  17  the  Assembly 
recommended  to  the  towns  of  the  State  that  they  authorize  the  existing 
Assembly  to  prepare  a  constitution,  "  to  be  made  public  for  the  inspection 
and  perusal  of  the  inhabitants,  before  the  ratification  thereof  by  the 
Assembly."  This  would  have  permitted  popular  suggestion  only;  Massa- 
chusetts would  not  tolerate  such  a  plan,  and  a  general  opposition  appeared 
to  any  action  whatever  by  the  ordinary  legislature.  A  Worcester  County 
convention  voted,  "That  a  State  congress  chosen  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
forming  a  constitution  is  .  .  .  more  eligible  than  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives." May  5,  1777,  the  expiring  Assembly  recommended  that  its 
successor  should  be  empowered,  at  the  elections,  to  make  a  constitution. 
Many  towns  refused  assent.  Thus,  a  Boston  town  meeting  instructed  its 
delegates  to  resist  the  movement  until  the  people  at  large  should  delegate 
"  a  select  number  for  that  purpose  and  that  alone.''''  But  there  was  suffi- 
cient approval  so  that  the  new  Assembly  felt  justified  in  attempting  the 
work.  In  February,  1778,  a  constitution  was  submitted  to  a  popular 
vote,  with  the  provision  that  an  affirmative  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the  towns 
should  suffice  to  establish  it. 

This  first  use  of  the  referendum  gave  a  rejection.  Less  than  a  tenth  of 
the  towns  approved  the  document !  Many  of  them  drew  up  lists  of  ob- 
jections ;  and  Boston  improved  the  opportunity  to  point  its  moral  as  to 
the  need  of  a  true  constitutional  convention:  "This  Specimen  we  now 
have  .  .  .  has  confirmed  us  fully,  even  to  demonstration,  [that]  we  were 
right  in  our  conjectures  that  the  Honorable  body  was  improper  for  this 
business."     Then  the  resolution  insists  again  that  the  matter  must  be 

1  Some  of  these  were  fantastic.  Democracy,  of  course,  will  show  its  weak 
points.  One  "farmer"  published  a  constitution  of  sixty  articles,  which,  he 
boasted  modestly,  he  had  prepared  for  the  commonwealth  "  between  the  hours 
of  10  a.m.  and  2  p.m."  Opposition  to  any  executive  was  common.  A.t  a 
slightly  later  date,  one  town  voted  "  that  it  is  Our  Opinniun  that  we  do  not 
want  any  Goviner  but  .the  Guviner  of  the  univarse  and  under  him  a  States 
Gineral  to  Consult  with  the  wrest  of  the  united  stats  for  the  good  of  the 
whole." 


STATE   CONSTITUTIONS  229 

committed  to  "  a  convention  for  this  purpose  and  this  alone,  whose  exist- 
ence is  known  no  longer  than  the  constitution  is  forming." 

This  method,  joined  with  the  referendum,  was  now  adopted,  and  a  con- 
stitution was  secured  in  the  most  democratic  and  enlightened  method  yet 
known  to  man.  At  the  elections  to  the  next  Assembly,  the  towns  were 
asked  to  vote,  (1)  whether  they  desired  a  constitution  to  be  framed,  and, 
(2)  if  so,  whether  they  would  empower  their  delegates  in  the  coming 
Assembly  to  call  a  Convention  for  the  sole  purpose  of  forming  a  constitu- 
tion. The  responses  were  favorable,  and  a  Convention  was  called  for 
September  1,  to  be  chosen  as  regular  Assemblies  were.  That  body  drew 
up  a  constitution  which  (March  2)  was  submitted  to  the  towns.  More 
than  two  thirds  the  towns  expressed  their  ratification,  at  their  regular 
spring  elections,  and  in  June,  1780,  the  Convention  declared  the  constitu- 
tion in  effect. 

In  New  Hampshire  a  like  method  was  followed,  and  four  popular  votes 
were  necessary  before  a  constitution  was  ratified  in  1783.  It  was  many 
years  before  this  method  became  general,  outside  New  England. 

153.  Characteristics.  —  The  thirteen  constitutions  were  strik- 
ingly alike}  All  were  " republican"  without  a  trace  of  heredi- 
tary political  privilege.  Nearly  all  safeguarded  the  rights  of 
the  individual  by  a  distinct  bill  of  rights,  and  the  rest  had  many 
provisions  of  a  like  character  scattered  through  the  body  of  the 
document.  Most  of  them  formally  adopted  the  English  Common 
Laic  as  part  of  the  law  of  the  land ;  and  where  the  constitution 
did  not  make  that  statement,  the  courts  none  the  less  acted 
upon  that  principle.  Except  in  Pennsylvania  and  Georgia,  the 
legislature  had  two  Houses  (§  70).     Pennsylvania  kept  a  plural 

1  This  was  due  mainly  to  the  similarity  between  the  preceding  colonial  gov- 
ernments, but  in  part  to  a  remarkably  active  interchange  of  ideas  among  the 
leaders  during  the  spring  and  summer  of  '76.  Before  the  Virginia  convention, 
Patrick  Henry  corresponded  freely  with  the  two  Adamses,  Members  of 
Congress  at  Philadelphia  constantly  discussed  forms  of  government  at  in- 
formal gatherings ;  and,  on  several  occasions,  delegates  from  distant  colonies 
returned  home  to  take  part  in  constitution-making.  John  Adams,  whose  early 
advocacy  of  independent  State  governments  had  brought  him  many  inquiries 
as  to  what  kind  of  government  he  had  in  mind,  wrote  much  on  the  subject  in 
his  private  correspondence,  and  finally  published  a  pamphlet,  Thoughts  on 
Government,  which  was  studied  widely.  Of  this  period  Adams  said,  "  The 
manufacture  of  governments  is  as  much  talked  of  as  was  the  manufacture  of 
saltpeter  before." 


230  THE   REVOLUTION 

executive,  —  a  council  with  one  member  designated  as  "  presi- 
dent ";  but  elsewhere  the  revolutionary  committees  of  safety 
gave  way  to  a  single  "  governor  "  or  "president." 1 

In  all  these  constitutions  the  executive  ivas  shorn  of  much  of 
the  power  of  colonial  times,  mainly  because  the  people  did  not 
yet  clearly  see  the  difference  between  trusting  an  officer  chosen 
by  themselves  and  one  appointed  by  a  distant  king.  New  York 
and  Massachusetts,  however  (the  eleventh  and  twelfth  States 
to  act),  had  had  time  to  learn  the  need  of  a  firm  executive. 
Accordingly,  they  strengthened  that  branch  of  government 
somewhat,  though  they  left  it  weaker  than  is  customary  to- 
day. These  two  States  also  placed  the  election  of  the  governor 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  directly.  That  was  already  the  case 
in  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  under  the  colonial  charters. 
Everywhere  else  the  dependence  of  the  executive  upon  the 
legislature  was  increased  by  making  him  the  appointee  of  the 
legislature.2  Appointment  was  usually  for  one  year,  with  pro- 
hibition upon  more  than  three  terms  out  of  seven  years. 

Everywhere  the  legislature  overshadowed  the  two  other 
branches  of  government.  ( Tlte  judiciary,  even  more  uniformly 
than  the  executive,  was  chosen  by  the  legislature,  and  in  many 
cases  was  removable  by  executive  and  legislature  without 
formal  trial./  No  one  yet  foresaw,  in  anything  like  its  modern 
extent,  the  later  power  of  the  judiciary  to  declare  legislative  acts 
void  when,  in  its  opinion,  contrary  to  the  constitution.  The  old 
executive  check  upon  the  legislature,  the  absolute  veto,  nowhere 
appeared*  and  only  two  States  devised  the  new  qualified  veto 


1  "  President "  was  the  less  imposing  title ;  but  the  president  of  South  Caro- 
lina after  all  was  a  State  executive,  while  the  president  of  the  council' in 
Pennsylvania  was  merely  a  presiding  member  in  an  executive  council.  The 
tendency  to  divide  the  executive  between  separate  officers,  —  go vernor^ treas- 
urer, and  so  on,  — continued  (§  119). 

2  In  the  Virginia  constituent  convention  a  separate  electoral  college  was 
suggested,  such  as  was  adopted  later  in  the  Federal  Constitution  for  the 
President.     Maryland  did  choose  her  senators  by  such  a  college. 

3  In  the  conventions  an  absolute  veto  was  advocated,  as  indispensable  to 
stable  government,  by  men  so  unlike  as  Patrick  Henry  and  John  Adams. 


STATE   CONSTITUTIONS  231 

(to  be  overridden  by  two  thirds  of  each  House),  which  has  since 
become  so  common.  New  York  gave  this  veto  to  governor  and 
judiciary  acting  together,  in  a  "  re  visionary  council  "  ;  Massa- 
chusetts gave  it  to  the  governor  alone,  —  in  other  respects 
copying  all  the  details,  and  even  the  words,  of  the  New  York 
plan.  From  the  Massachusetts  constitution  this  form  of  veto, 
with  one  important  addition  (§  156,  c)  was  to  pass,  words  and 
all,  into  the  Federal  Constitution. 

(  One  of  the  most  common  provisions  was  some  religious  dis- 
crimination. "Freedom  of  worship,"  it  is  true,  was  generally 
asserted  in  the  bills  of  rights ;  but  this  did  not  imply  our 
modern  separation  of  church  and  state.  Office  holding  in 
several  States  was  restricted  to  Protestant  Christians,  and  some 
States  kept  a  specially  favored  ("  established  ")  church.  The 
Massachusetts  bill  of  rights  provided  that  all  citizens  should  be 
taxed  for  church  support,  but  that  each  man  should  have  the 
right  to  say  to  which  church  in  his  town  or  village  his  payment 
should  go.  Most  places  in  Massachusetts  had  only  a  Congre- 
gational church,  however,  which,  therefore,  was  maintained  at 
public  expense.     Connecticut  had  a  similar  plan.^ 

Local  government  remained  more  nearly  upon  the  pre-Revo- 
lutionary  basis.  There  was,  however,  a  distinct  tendency 
toward  decentralization.  Some  officers,  formerly  appointive, 
became  elective  in  the  local  units ;  and  others  were  chosen 
now  not  by  the  governor,  but  by  the  legislature,  usually  on 
local  nomination. 

Two  remaining  matters,  the  suffrage  and  the  method  of  amendment, 
are  so  fundamental  that  they  deserve  distinct  sections  to  themselves 
(§§  154,  155). 


*& 


154.  The  Franchise.  —  Democracy  was  more  praised  than  practiced. 
Each  8f  the  thirteen  States  excluded  a  large  part  of  even  the  free  White 
males  from  voting.  Some  gave  the  franchise  only  to  those  who  held  land, 
and  most  of  the  others  demanded  the  ownership  of  considerable  taxable 
property  of  some  kind  as  a  qualification.  Even  the  four  most  democratic 
States  —  Pennsylvania,  New  Hampshire,  Georgia,  North  Carolina  —  per- 


232  THE   REVOLUTION 

initted  only  taxpayers  to  vote.1     The  country  over,  probably  not  one  White 
man  in  five  held  even  the  lowest  degree  of  the  suffrage.2 

The  common  requirement  of  more  property  to  vote  for  the 
upper  than  for  the  lower  House  of  the  legislature  was  one  of 
the  devices  to  make  the  senates  special  protectors  of  property 
interests.  Commonly,  too,  there  was  a  still-  higher  qualification 
for  sitting  in  the  legislature,  —  often  more  for  the  upper  House 
than  for  the  lower, — and  yet  more  for  a  governor.  In  several 
States,  the  upper  House  was  chosen  by  the  lower ;  and  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, while  all  men  who  could  vote  for  one  House  could 
vote  for  the  other  also,  still  in  choosing  the  senate,  the  votes  were 
so  apportioned  that  a  rich  man  counted  for  several  poor  men.3 

Here  were  four  distinct  ingenious  devices  against  a  dangerously  en- 
croaching democracy:  (i)  an  upper  House  (§  70)  ;  (2)  indirect  election 
of  that  House,  and  of  the  executive  and  judiciary  ;  (3)  property  qualifica- 
tions, sometimes  graded,  for  voting ;  and  (4)  higher  qualifications  for 
holding  office.  All  these  had  been  developed  in  the  colonial  period.  On  the 
whole,  the  new  States  weakened  the  checks  {and  no  State  increased  them) ; 
but  every  State  retained  some  of  them. 

North  Carolina  pretty  well  lost  her  democracy  in  these  gradations. 
To  vote  for  a  representative,  a  man  had  only  to  be  a  taxpayer ;  but  to 
vote  for  senator,  he  must  own  50  acres  of  land  ;  to  sit  as  representative, 
he  must  have  100  acres  ;  as  senator,  300  acres  ;  and  as  governor,  £1000  of 
real  estate.  Massachusetts,  beginning  higher,  graded  her  voters  only 
indirectly  (note,  above) ;  but  a  member  of  her  lower  House  had  to  have 

1  Curiously,  these  four  States  all  put  into  their  constitutions  a  provision  for 
encouraging  public  education.  It  should  be  added  that  Pennsylvania  and 
Georgia  were  a  trifle  more  liberal  with  the  franchise  than  the  compact  state- 
ment in  the  text  would  indicate.  The  first  gave  the  suffrage  to  the  grown-up 
sons  of  freeholders,  and  the  second  to  certain  classes  of  skilled  artisans, 
whether  taxpayers  or  not. 

2  Even  Jefferson's  draft  for  a  Virginia  constitution  (Works,  Ford  ed.,  II,  7 
ff.)  calls  for  a  landed  qualification,  "  I  acre  in  a  town  or  25  acres  in  the  coun- 
try." But  see  George  Mason's  more  democratic  proposal,  Source  Book, 
No.  136,  and  comment. 

8  That  is,  the  richer  any  part  of  the  State,  the  smaller  the  senatorial  dis- 
tricts, and  the  more  of  them.  A  man  who  paid  taxes  on  $3000  had  ten  times 
the  voting  power  of  a  man  who  paid  on  only  $300. 


STATE   CONSTITUTIONS  233 

£100  in  real  estate  or  £200  in  other  property  ;  a  senator,  three  times  as 
much  ;  and  a  governor,  £1000  in  "real  "  property.1  South  Carolina  re- 
quired her  governor  to  hold  £5000  in  land,  and  so  left  only  her  great 
planters  eligible.2 

155.  Provision  for  Amendment.  —  To-day  it  is  customary  to 
say  that  the  most  important  clause  in  any  constitution  — "  the 
constitutional  clause  " —  is  the  one  that  determines  how  the 
document  may  be  changed.  But  half  these  first  constitutions 
had  no  provision  whatever  in  the  matter.  The  omission  was 
due  partly  to  the  political  inexperience  of  that  day ;  partly  to 
the  vague  expectation  that,  on  occasion,  by  a  sort  of  peaceful 
revolution,  the  people  would  "  recur  to  fundamental  princi- 
ples "  in  much  the  same  way  as  in  creating  the  original  instru- 
ments. A  definite  method  for  amendment  was  prescribed  in 
only  six  of  the  thirteen  constitutions;  and  in  some  of  these 
the  method  was  very  imperfect. 

In  South  Carolina  the  legislature  gave  ninety  days'  notice  (that  public 
opinion  might  be  known),  and  then  acted  as  in  passing  any  law.  In 
Maryland,  an  amendment  became  part  of  the  constitution  if  passed  by 
two  successive  legislatures.  In  Delaware  five  sevenths  of  one  house  and 
seven  ninths  of  the  other  were  required  to  carry  an  amendment,  —  which 
amounted  to  complete  prohibition  upon  constitutional  amendment. 
In  Pennsylvania,  amendments  could  be  proposed  only  at  intervals  of  seven 

1  This  qualification  for  governor  was  preserved  in  later  Massachusetts  con- 
stitutions. More  than  a  century  afterward  (1890),  when  William  E.  Russell, 
a  brilliant  young  reformer,  was  elected  governor,  it  was  found  necessary,  dur- 
ing the  campaign,  to  put  enough  real  estate  to  his  name  so  that  he  could 
qualify. 

2  Vermont,  it  is  true,  was  a  real  democracy;  but  Vermont  was  not  one  of 
the  thirteen  colonies,  nor  did  she  become  a  State  of  the  Union  until  1791.  Her 
territory  had  belonged  to  New  York  and  New  Hampshire ;  but  neither  govern- 
ment was  satisfactory  to  the  inhabitants,  and,  during  the  early  Revolutionary 
disorders,  the  Green  Mountain  districts  set  up  a  government  of  their  own. 
Neither  Congress  nor  any  other  State  government  "recognized"  Vermont; 
but,  in  1777,  it  adopted  a  constitution  with  manhood  suffrage.  This  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  Vermont,  as  a  whole,  was  a  frontier  community,  correspond- 
ing to  the  "back  counties"  of  other  States.  Indeed,  its  "constitution"  was 
regarded  much  as  were  the  provisional  and  equally  democratic  governments 
set  up  about  the  same  time  by  little  frontier  communities  west  of  the  moun- 
tains (§§  167,  272). 


234  THE   REVOLUTION 

years,  and  only  in  a  peculiar  fashion.  As  a  result,  in  these  two  States, 
amendment  was  finally  accomplished  by  new  conventions  with  disregard 
of  the  constitutional  provisions.  Georgia  and  Massachusetts  provided  for 
the  calling  of  constitutional  conventions  in  a  modern  fashion  ;  and  Georgia 
went  so  far  as  to  require  a,  popular  initiative.  A  majority  of  voters  in  a 
majority  of  counties  had  to  petition  for  an  amendment, — which  would 
then  be  submitted  to  a  convention  called  by  the  legislature. 

Exercise.  —  Review  (from  §§  140, 141,  145,  148,  149)  the  constitutional 
revolution  in  Virginia,  from  colony  to  commonwealth. 

(The  following  study  may  well  be  taken  up,  a  paragraph  at  a  time, 
while  the  class  goes  on  with  the  advance  work.  It  is  to  be  continued  after 
§  297.  Every  institution  should  have  several  copies  of  recent  Legislative 
"Blue  Books"  accessible  to  a  class  in  American  History  and  Govern- 
ment. Any  information  called  for  below,  and  not  found  readily  in  such 
volumes,  can  be  easily  found  in  State  Histories  or  State  "  Civics,"  or,  for 
recent  years,  from  resident  members  of  the  State  legislature,  who,  perhaps, 
will  address  the  class  on  some  of  the  topics.  Recent  editions  of  the  World 
Almanac  will,  of  course,  be  at  hand.) 

156.  Excursus:  Suggestions  for  Study  of  State  Governments 
Then  and  Now.  —  a.  Distinguish  clearly  between  a  "  constitu- 
tional convention  "  and  an  ordinary  legislature.  Which  repre- 
sents the  supreme  power  of  the  State  the  more  completely  ? 
(What  is  that  supreme  power  ?)  How  was  the  present  consti- 
tution of  your  State  adopted  ?  (If  the  State  has  had  more  than 
one  constitution,  outline  the  history  of  each.)  How  can  it  be 
amended  ?     Are  amendments  frequent  ? 

b.  What  classes  of  adults  cannot  vote  in  your  State  ?  Would 
you  prefer  to  enlarge  or  decrease  the  restrictions  ?  l 

c.  Compare  the  bill  of  rights  in  your  State  constitution  with 
the  original  Virginia  bill  of  rights  and  with  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  Do  you  know  of  any  reported  attempts  in  re- 
cent times  by  any  branch  of  a  State  government  to  violate  its 

1  Women  have  the  full  suffrage  in  nine  Western  States  (1913) .  In  nearly  all 
others,  they  can  vote  on  school  affairs  and  hold  school  offices.  This  theme  is 
suitable  for  school  debates  ;  or  a  series  of  topics  on  the  history  of  the  woman 
suffrage  movement  and  its  present  status  may  be  assigned  for  special  reports. 


THE   CONGRESS  AND   THE   WAR  235 

bill  of  rights  ?    In  such  a  case,  what  branch  of  the  government 
would  have  the  final  say  ? 

d.  Read  the  veto  clauses  in  the  original  New  York  and 
Massachusetts  constitutions  and  in  the  Federal  Constitution 
(in  Appendix  I),  noting  comment  there  on  the  pocket  veto. 
What  important  acts  of  your  last  legislature  were  vetoed  ? 
Have  any  important  acts  of  your  legislature  in  recent  years 
been  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  courts,  State  or  Federal  ? 

e.  Make  a  table  showing  the  system  of  courts  for  your  State, 
with  jurisdiction  of  each  grade,  method  of  appointing  or  elect- 
ing judges,  term  of  office,  and  salary.  (The  early  tendency  to 
make  the  courts  appointive  has  mostly  disappeared.)  The  term 
of  office  is  from  twenty-one  years  to  two,  with  an  average  per- 
haps of  eight  or  nine.  Do  you  find  any  State  where  the  judges 
still  hold  for  life  ?     What  do  you  think  of  a  twenty-year  term  ? 

(For  State  executive,  and  the  relations  of  executive  and 
legislature,  see  close  of  §  297.) 

E.     The  Congress  and  the  War 

157.  Resources  and  their  Utilization.  —  The  population  of 
Great  Britain 1  was  about  three  times  that  of  the  colonies,  and 
its  wealth  much  greater  in  proportion.  But  (as  we  know  now 
better  than  any  one  did  then)  for  eight  million  people  to  sub- 
due and  hold  two  and  a  half  million,  at  a  distance  of  three 
thousand  miles,  is  well-nigh  impossible,  —  especially  when  the 
people  to  be  conquered  inhabit  a  large  and  scattered  territory 
with  no  vital  centers.  The  danger  lay,  not  in  England's  strength, 
but  in  American  disunion  and  in  the  governments  inefficiency. 
Had  the  Americans  been  united  in  sentiment  (as  was  our 
South  in  1861,  or  the  South  African  Boers  in  1900),  England 
would  have  had  no  chance  at  all ;  and  even  with  every  third 
man  sympathizing  with  England,  if  we  had  possessed  a  strong 

1  Omitting  Ireland's  3,000,000,  which  at  this  period  was  a  source  of  anxiety 
rather  than  of  strength  to  the  empire.  Ireland  was  part  of  the  British  state, 
but  not  part  of  "  Great  Britain  "  proper. 


236  THE   REVOLUTION 

central  government  able  to  gather  and  wield  our  resources,  the 
British  armies  could  have  been  driven  into  the  sea  in  six  months. 
From  the  500,000  able-bodied,  White  males  of  the  thirteen 
colonies,1  the  Americans  should  have  put  in  the  field  an  army 
of  100,000  men.  In  1864  their  great-grandsons  went  forth  in 
that  proportion  to  preserve  the  Union,  and  in  much  higher 
proportion,  to  escape  from  it  (§  375).  But,  if  we  leave  out  the 
militia,  which  now  and  again  swarmed  out  for  a  few  days  to 
repel  a  local  raid,  the  continental  forces  hardly  reached  a  third 
that  number  at  any  time ;  and,  for  the  greater  part  of  the  war, 
the  strength  was  nearer  ten  than  thirty  thousand.  Even  these 
few  were  ill-paid,  ill-fed,  and  worse  clothed.  And  this  not  so 
much  from  the  poverty  of  the  country,  as  from  lack  of  organiza- 
tion, and,  to  some  degree,  from  an  amazing  repugnance  felt  by 
Congress  and  State  legislatures  toward  the  army  that  fought 
for  them. 

Said  Washington:  "In  other  countries,  the  prejudice  against  stand- 
ing armies  exists  only  in  time  of  peace,  and  this  because  the  troops  are 
a  distinct  body  from  its  citizens  ...  it  is  our  policy  to  be  prejudiced 
against  them  in  time  of  war,  though  they  are  citizens."  And,  as  John 
Fiske  well  says,  in  referring  to  the  dreadful  sufferings  of  Washington's 
army  at  Valley  Forge  which  "have  called  forth  the  pity  and  admiration 
of  historians  "  :  "  The  point  of  the  story  is  lost  unless  we  realize  that  this 
misery  resulted  from  gross  mismanagement  rather  than  from  the  poverty 
of  the  country.  As  the  soldiers  marched  on  the  seventeenth  of  December 
to  their  winter  quarters,  their  route  could  be  traced  on  the  snow  by  the 
blood  that  oozed  from  bare,  frost-bitten  feet.  Yet,  at  the  same  moment, 
.  .  .  hogsheads  of  shoes,  stockings,  and  clothing  were  lying  at  different 
places  on  the  route  and  in  the  woods,  perishing  for  want  of  teams." 

Fortunately,  the  English  commanders  were  of  second  or 
third  rate  ability.  Among  the  Americans,  the  war  developed 
some  excellent  generals  of  the  second  rank,  —  Greene,  Arnold, 

1  French  Canada  and  Spanish  Florida,  both  then  recently  conquered  by 
England,  were  repeatedly  invited  to  join  in  the  War  for  Independence.  These 
colonies,  however,  had  never  known  a  less  oppressive  government,  and  they 
had  little  liking  for  their  New  England  neighbors.  So,  in  spite  of  race  hatred 
for  their  English  governors,  they  could  not  be  induced  to  rise,  even  when  an 
American  army  appeared  in  Canada. 


THE   CONGRESS  AND   THE   WAR  237 

Marion,  etc,  but  too  many  officers  were  marked  mainly  by 
incompetency,  or  self-seeking,  or  treacherous  intrigue.  After 
a  real  army  had  grown  out  of  the  vicious  system  of  short-term 
levies  that  characterized  the  first  two  years,  the  faithful  endur- 
ance of  the  common  soldier  was  splendid.  Said  one  observer, 
"  Barefoot,  he  labors  through  Mud  and  Cold  with  a  Song  in 
his  Mouth,  extolling  War  and  Washington."  Yet  at  times 
even  this  soldiery  was  driven  to  conspiracy  or  open  mutiny  by 
the  jealous  unwillingness  of  Congress  to  make  provision  for 
their  needs  in  the  field  or  for  their  families  at  home. 

Out  of  all  this  murkiness,  towers  one  bright  and  glorious 
figure.  Pleading  with  Congress  for  justice  to  his  soldiers, 
shaming  or  sternly  compelling  those  justly  dissatisfied  soldiers 
to  their  duty,  quietly  ignoring  repeated  slights  of  Congress 
to  himself,  facing  outnumbering  forces  of  perfectty  equipped 
veterans  when  his  own  army  was  a  mere  shell,  Washiyigton, 
holding  well  in  hand  that  fiery  temper  which  still,  on  occasion, 
could  make  him  swear  "  like  an  angel  from  heaven,"  was  al- 
ways great-minded,  dignified,  indefatigable,  steadfastly  in- 
domitable ;  a  devoted  patriot ;  a  sagacious  statesman ;  a  con- 
summate soldier,  patient  to  wait  his  chance  and  daring  to  seize 
it:  th£  one  indispensable  man  of  the  Revolution.  \ 

158.  The  Critical  Years,  77  and  '78. —In  1777,  Howe  invaded 
Pennsylvania.  Washington  maneuvered  his  inferior  forces  admirably. 
He  retreated  when  he  had  to  ;  was  robbed  of  a  splendidly  deserved,  de- 
cisive victory  at  Germantown  only  by  a  mixture  of  chance  and  of  lack  of 
veteran  discipline  in  his  soldiers  ;  and,  after  spinning  out  the  campaign 
for  months,  went  into  winter  quarters  at  Valley  Forge  —  then  to  grow 
famous  for  heroic  suffering.  Howe  had  won  the  empty  glory  of  captur- 
ing "the  Rebel  Capital,"  and  he  settled  down  there  to  a  winter  of  feast- 
ing and  dancing  ;  but  he  had  been  decoyed  from  his  chance  to  crush  the 
American  cause  by  making  safe  Burgoyne's  invasion  from  Canada. 
Lacking  this  expected  cooperation  from  the  south,  Burgoyne  proved 
unable  to  secure  the  line  of  the  Hudson,  and  was  forced  to  surrender1 
to  the  incompetent,  fortune-swollen  Gates. 

1  The  inexcusable  way  in  which  Congress  failed  to  ratify  the  terms  of  sur- 
render may  be  the  subject  of  a  special  report. 


238  THE   REVOLUTION 

This  capitulation  of  an  entire  English  army  turned  the  wavering  policy 
of  France  into  firm  alliance  with  America  against  her  ancient  rival.  From 
the  first,  the  French  government  had  furnished  the  Americans  with  much- 
needed  money  and  supplies,  secretly  and  indirectly  ;  and  many  adven- 
turous young  noblemen  like  Lafayette,  imbued  with  the  new  liberal  phi- 
losophy of  Rousseau,  had  volunteered  for  service  under  "Washington. 
Franklin  had  been  acting  as  the  American  agent  in  Paris  for  some  months 
without  formal  recognition.  Now  he  quickly  secured  two  treaties,  —  one 
of  commerce,  one  of  political  and  military  alliance.  The  independence 
of  the  United  States  was  recognized  ;  the  possessions  of  the  two  powers 
in  America  were  mutually  guaranteed  ;  and  it  was  agreed  that  peace  with 
England  should  be  made  only  after  consultation  and  approval  by  both. 
allies.1  France  drew  Spain  in  her  train  ;  and,  soon  after,  England  quar- 
reled with  Holland.  Without  an  ally,  England  found  herself  facing  not 
merely  her  own  colonies,  but  the  three  greatest  naval  powers  of  the  world 
(next  to  herself),  while  most  of  the  rest  of  Europe  held  toward  her  an 
attitude  of  • '  armed  neutrality  ' '  —  which  meant  instant  readiness  for 
hostility  at  the  slightest  opening. 

In  America,  however,  the  darkest  months  of  the  war  were  those  inter- 
vening between  the  victory  over  Burgoyne  and  the  news  of  the  French 
alliance.  The  first  flush  of  enthusiasm  Was  spent.  The  infamous  Con- 
way Cabal  (among  officers  and  Congressmen)  threatened  to  deprive  the 
country  of  Washington's  services.  Nearly  a  fifth  of  the  starving  army 
deserted  to  the  well-fed  enemy  in  Philadelphia,  and  another  fifth  could 
not  leave  their  winter  huts  for  want  of  clothing.  The  paper  money, 
issued  by  Congress  in  constantly  increasing  volume  —  the  chief  means  of 
paying  the  soldiers  and  securing  supplies  —  was  nearly  valueless.  For- 
eign trade  was  impossible  because  England  commanded  the  sea ;  and 
domestic  industry  of  all  sorts  was  at  a  standstill  because  of  the  demorali- 
zation of  the  currency.  To  large  numbers  of  patriots,  even  the  news 
of  the  new  ally  was  of  doubtful  cheer.  Many  began  to  fear  that  they  had 
only  exchanged  the  petty  annoyances  of  English  rule  for  the  slavery  of 
French  despotism  and  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition.    {Source  Book,  No.  144.) 

Two  results  of  the  French  treaty  followed  close  upon  its  announce- 
ment. (1)  The  English  general  was  ordered  to  evacuate  Philadelphia 
and  concentrate  forces  at  New  York.     The  watchful  Washington  was 


1  Large  sections  of  the  French  people  felt  a  genuine  enthusiasm  for  Amer- 
ica, but  to  the  despotic  French  government  the  alliance  was  purely  a  "  League 
of  Hatred."  Spain  and  Holland  were  never  our  allies:  they  were  the  allies 
of  France.  The  treaty  with  France  is  the  only  alliance  America  has  ever 
formed. 


THE   CONGRESS  AND  THE   WAR  239 

close  upon  the  rear  of  the  retreating  army,  and  at  Monmouth  his  strategy 
and  dash  were  again  robbed  of  the  fruit  of  victory,  —  this  time  by  the 
misconduct  or  treason  of  General  Charles  Lee.  (2)  Lord  North  sent 
commissioners  to  America  with  an  "olive  branch  "  proposition  :  all  the 
contentions  of  the  Americans,  previous  to  July  4,  1776,  should  be  granted, 
together  with  a  universal  anmesty,  if  they  would  return  to  their  alle- 
giance. By  a  unanimous  vote,  Congress  refused  to  consider  propositions 
"so  derogatory  to  the  honor  of  an  independent  nation." 

159.  A  "War  of  Desolation."  —  In  the  northern  states  no  British 
army  of  consequence  again  appeared  in  the  field,  and  Washington's 
forces  were  too  insufficient  to  undertake  extensive  projects.  Except  for 
minor  operations,  the  war  was  transferred  to  the  South,  with  swift  alter- 
nations of  success  and  failure  through  1779  and  1780.  In  both  North 
and  South,  after  the  summer  of  '78,  the  struggle  took  on  a  new  character. 
It  became  a  "  war  of  desolation,"  — a  succession  of  sudden  raids  to  harry 
and  distress  a  countryside  or  to  burn  a  town  or  port,1  varied  by  occasional 
bloody  and  vindictive  combats  like  those  at  Cowpens  and  King's  Moun- 
tain. The  Loyalists  who  had  been  driven  from  their  homes  in  Boston 
and  Philadelphia  with  the  retirement  of  the  British  forces,  together  with 
those  living  in  the  vicinity  of  New  York,  enrolled  themselves  in  large 
numbers  2  under  the  English  flag  ;  and,  because  of  their  knowledge  of  the 
country,  these  troops  were  used  freely  in  these  harrying  expeditions.  In 
consequence,  the  attitude  of  the  Whig  governments,  State  and  local, 
toward  even  the  passive  sympathizers  with  England,  became  ferocious. 
Those  unhappy  men  who  had  long  since  been  deprived  of  their  votes 
were  now  excluded  from  professions  and  many  other  employments,  for- 


1  A  terrible  feature  of  some  of  these  raids  was  the  use  of  Indian  allies  by 
the  English.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Americans  had  first  tried 
to  secure  such  allies.  Both  Washington  and  John  Adams  had  favored  their 
enlistment.  Montgomery  had  some  Indians  in  the  army  with  which  he 
invaded  Canada,  and  there  were  a  few  in  the  American  army  besieging  Boston 
in  1775.  It  had  been  intended  to  use  the  friendship  of  the  natives  for  the 
French  in  order  to  draw  them  into  a  force  under  Lafayette.  The  simple  fact 
is  that  Indians  had  been  used  by  both  sides  in  America  in  all  the  intercolonial 
wars,  and  both  parties  in  this  new  contest  continued  their  use  so  far  as  possi- 
ble ;  but  the  natives  saw  truly  that  the  real  enemy  of  their  race  was  the 
American  settler,  and  therefore  turned  against  him.  Cf.  Parkman's  Montcalm 
and  Wolfe,  II,  421;  Roosevelt's  Winning  of  the  West,  II,  87;  Ferguson's 
Historical  Essays,  204. 

2  New  York  alone  furnished  15,000  recruits  to  the  English  army,  besides 
8000  more  Loyalist  militia.  It  has  been  said  that  at  important  periods,  more 
Americans  were  under  arms  against  independence  than  for  it. 


240  THE   REVOLUTION- 

bidden  to  move  from  place  to  place,  ruined  by  manifold  fines,  drafted 
into  the  army,  imprisoned  on  suspicion,  sometimes  deported  with  their 
families  in  herds  to  distant  provinces,  and  constantly  exposed  to  the  most 
horrible  forms  of  mob  violence.  If  they  succeeded  in  escaping  to  the 
British  lines,  their  property  was  confiscated  (oftentimes  to  enrich  graft- 
ing speculators  at  corruptly  managed  sales),  and  they  themselves,  by 
hundreds  at  a  time,  were  condemned  to  death  in  case  of  return  or  re- 
capture,—  not  by  judicial  trials,  but,  without  a  hearing,  by  bills  of 
attainder.1 

Seemingly,  the  war  had  settled  down  to  a  test  of  endurance.  Cam- 
paigns in  Europe  and  the  West  Indies  drained  England's  resources, 
glorious  though  the  results  were  to  her  arms  against  those  tremendous 
odds.'2  Meantime,  in  America,  Congress  kept  its  sinking  finances  afloat 
by  generous  gifts  and  huge  loans  from  France.  The  army,  however, 
was  dangerously  discontented.  Desertions  to  the  enemy  rose  to  a 
hundred  or  two  hundred  a  month.  Suddenly  an  unexpected  chance 
offered.  Washington,  ever  ready,  grasped  at  it,  and  this  time  no  evil 
fate  intervened.  With  the  indispensable  cooperation  of  the  French  army 
and  fleet,  Cornwallis  and  his  army  were  cooped  up  in  Yorktown.  With 
his  surrender  (October  19,  1781)  war  virtually  closed,  though  peace  was 
not  signed,  nor  British  troops  withdrawn  from  the  American  coast,  for 
many  months. 

1  A  "  bill  of  attainder"  is  a  legislative  act  imposing  penalties  upon  one  or 
more  individuals.  The  legislature  condemns,  not  the  courts ;  and  of  course 
the  accused  lose  all  the  ordinary  securities  against  injustice.  Such  bills  had 
been  used  occasionally  in  English  history  at  the  dictation  of  a  despotic  king, 
and  sometimes  by  the  party  of  liberty  to  strike  down  a  powerful  minister  of  a 
despot,  whom  the  courts  or  ordinary  impeachment  could  not  convict.  In  the 
early  mouths  of  the  Long  Parliament,  when  it  became  apparent  that  tech- 
nicalities would  prevent  the  conviction  of  the  traitor  Wentworth  in  the  im- 
peachment proceedings,  Pym  and  the  other  radicals  secured  the  punishment 
of  the  great  criminal  by  a  bill  of  attainder.  (Cf .  Modern  History,  §  244.)  Such 
condemnation  for  treason  or  other  high  crimes,  in  the  cruel  law  of  the  time, 
carried  with  it  "  attaint  of  blood."  That  is,  the  family  of  the  condemned 
were  made  to  suffer  also,  at  least  by  the  loss  of  property,  and  commonly  by 
inability  to  hold  office.  By  our  constitution  of  1787,  it  is  provided  that  treason 
shall  "  not  work  attaint  of  blood,"  and  bills  of  attainder  are  wholly  forbid- 
den. Until  the  adoption  of  that  instrument,  however,  many  States  did  pass 
such  bills  against  prominent  Tories,  —  sometimes  against  great  numbers  of 
them.  An  attempt  was  made  in  the  Virginia  bill  of  rights  to  prohibit  such 
bills ;  but  Patrick  Henry  urged  that  they  might  be  indispensable  in  that  time 
of  war.     Some  States  incorporated  the  prohibition  in  their  first  bill  of  rights. 

2  Cf.  West's  Modern  History,  §  284. 


CONTINENTAL  CURRENCY  241 

160.  Congress  and  the  Paper  Money.  —  The  best  excuse  for 
the  misrule  of  Congress  was  its  real  weakness  and  its  conse- 
quent feeling  of  irresponsibility.  In  all  internal  matters,  its 
power  was  limited  almost  wholly  to  recommendations,  which 
the  States  grew  to  regard  more  and  more  lightly.  It  asked 
men  to  enlist,  offering  bounties  to  those  who  did  so,  but  often 
found  its  offers  outbid  by  the  State  governments  to  increase 
their  own  troops.  It  had  no  power  to  draft  men  into  the 
ranks :  only  the  State  governments  could  do  that.  So,  too,  in 
the  matter  of  finances.  Congress  could  not  tax :  it  only  called 
on  the  States  for  contributions  in  a  ratio  agreed  upon. 

Such  contributions,  even  when  reinforced  by  the  loans 
from  France,  were  not  more  than  half  of  the  amount  neces- 
sary to  carry  on  the  war.  At  the  very  beginning,  Congress 
was  forced  to  issue  paper  money.  Each  scrap  of  such  money 
was  merely  an  indefinite  promissory  note  from  Congress  to 
"bearer."  In  five  years,  printing  presses  supplied  Congress 
with  $241,000,000  of  such  "continental  currency";1  and,  with 
this,  perhaps  %  50,000,000  worth  of  services  and  supplies  were 
bought.2  Congress  itself  had  no  power  to  compel  people  to 
take  this  currency ;  but,  at  the  request  of  Congress,  the  States 
made  it  "legal  tender."  If  the  Americans  failed  in  the  war, 
of  course  the  money  would  be  wholly  worthless ;  and  even  if 
they  succeeded,  the  redemption  of  the  notes,  it  was  clear, 
would  be  very  uncertain.  In  1776  (when  only  twenty  millions 
had  been  issued),  depreciation  set  in.  In  1778,  a  dollar  would 
buy  only  twelve  cents'  worth  of  goods.  In  1780,  Congress 
"  redeemed  "  outstanding  and  worthless  notes  by  neiv  notes,  at 
two  and  a  half  cents  on  a  dollar  ;  but  the  new  issue  naturally 
lost  value  even  more  swiftly  than  the  old.  A  cheap  suit  of 
clothes  cost  from  one  to  two  thousand  dollars ;  and  the  Tories 

1  So  called  to  distinguish  this  currency  put  forth  hy  the  central  govern- 
ment from  similar  issues  hy  the  States.  The  State  currency  amounted  to 
$200,000,000  more  ;  hut  most  of  it  had  more  value  than  the  continental  paper. 

2  After  depreciation  began,  even  with  a  new  issue  Congress  could  not  get 
nearly  a  dollar's  worth  of  supplies  for  a  paper  dollar. 


242  THE   REVOLUTION 

laughed  at  men  who  had  gone  to  war,  they  said,  rather  than 
pay  threepence  tax  on  tea  and  who  now  paid  one  hundred 
dollars  a  pound  for  that  article.  In  1781,  Thomas  Paine  paid 
$300  for  a  pair  of  woolen  stockings,  and  Jefferson  records  a 
fee  of  $3000  to  a  physician  for  two  visits.  "Not  worth  a 
continental "  became  a  byword.  Before  the  close  of  1781,  this 
currency  ceased  to  circulate  except  as  speculators  bought  it  up, 
at  perhaps  a  thousand  dollars  for  one  in  coin.  A  mob  used 
it  to  "  tar  and  feather  n  a  dog ;  and  McLaughlin  tells  of  an  en- 
terprising barber  who  papered  his  shop  with  continental  notes. 

All  this  meant  a  reign  of  terror  in  business.  Men  who,  in  1775,  had 
loaned  a  neighbor  $1000  in  good  money  were  compelled,  three  or  four 
years  later,  to  take  in  payment  a  pile  of  paper  almost  without  value,  but 
named  $  1000.  Prices  varied  fantastically  from  one  day  to  another,  and 
in  neighboring  localities  on  the  same  day.  Wages  and  salaries  rose  more 
slowly  than  prices  (as  is  always  the  case),  and  large  classes  of  the  people 
suffered  exceedingly  in  consequence. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  "  cheap  money ' '  was  the  only  money 
Congress  could  get.  If  a  "  note  "  had  ever  been  repaid,  it  would  have  been 
in  reality  a  "forced  loan."  Since  it  never  was  repaid,  it  amounted  to  a 
tax,  or  a  confiscation  of  private  property  for  public  uses,  —  the  tax  being 
paid,  not  by  one  man,  but  by  all  the  people  through  whose  hands  it 
passed.1  Such  taxation  was  horribly  wasteful  and  demoralizing;  but  it 
was  the  only  kind  of  tax  to  which  the  people  would  have  submitted  in  the 
amount  required.  Without  the  paper  money,  the  Revolution  could  not 
have  been  won. 

161.  Washington  and  the  Newburg  Addresses.  —  One  famous 
episode  occurred  while  the  treaty  negotiations  dragged  along. 
The  pay  of  the  soldiers  and  officers  was  several  years  in 
arrears,  and  Congress  showed  no  desire  to  make  any  satisfac- 
tory arrangement.     Soon  the  army  would  be  no  longer  needed. 

1  A  sold  a  horse  to  the  government  for  one  hundred  dollars  in  paper  cur- 
rency ;  when  he  passed  the  paper  on  to  B,  he  received  perhaps  only  ninety 
dollars  in  value  for  it.  Ten  dollars  had  been  taken  from  him  by  tax,  or  con- 
fiscation. B  perhaps  got  only  seventy  dollars'  worth  for  the  money;  so  he 
had  been  "  taxed  "•  twenty  dollars.  The  government  had  secured  the  horse  for 
a  piece  of  paper,  and  eventually  the  horse  was  paid  for  by  the  various  people 
in  whose  hands  the  paper  depreciated. 


THE   TREATY  OF  PEACE  243 

When  disbanded,  its  members  would  be  even  less  likely  to 
secure  justice.  In  this  situation,  a  definite  plan  appeared  in 
the  camp  at  Newburg  to  secure  better  government  by  making 
Washington  king.1  When  Washington  repulsed  the  proposition 
with  grieved  anger,  an  anonymous  address  summoned  a  meeting 
of  officers  to  adopt  some  method  to  redress  their  grievances, 
suggesting  at  least  that  the  army  should  not  disband  until  Con- 
gress had  been  forced  to  proper  action.  This  incipient  conflict 
between  the  civil  and  military  powers,  which  would  have  so 
sullied  the  beginning  of  the  new  nation's  career,  was  averted  by 
the  tact  and  unrivaled  influence  of  Washington.  He  antici- 
pated the  meeting  of  the  officers  by  calling  an  earlier  one 
himself,  at  which  he  prevailed  upon  their  patriotism  to  aban- 
don all  forms  of  armed  compulsion ;  and  then  he  finally  pre- 
vailed upon  Congress  to'  pay  a  five  years'  salary  in  government 
certificates,  worth  perhaps  twenty  cents  on  the  dollar,  —  a  meager 
return,  but  perhaps  all  that  the  demoralized  government  at 
that  date  was  equal  to. 

162.  Treaty  of  1783.  —  The  negotiations  for  peace  were  car- 
ried on  from  Paris,  with  Franklin,  John  Jay,  and  John  Adams 
to  represent  the  United  States.  Spite  of  King  George,  the 
fall  of  Yorktown  overthrew  Lord  North's  ministry ;  and  the 
new  English  government  contained  statesmen  friendly  to 
America,  such  as  Fox,  Rockingham,  and  Shelburne 2  (§  136). 
From  this  fact  and  from  the  remarkable  ability  of  the  Ameri- 
can negotiators,  it  resulted  that  the  treaty  was  marvelously 
advantageous. 

Just  before  the  war  (1769),  but  contrary  to  orders  of  the 
English  government,  a  few  Virginians  had  crossed  the  western 

1  Conservative  patriots  like  Gouverneur  Morris  would  perhaps  have  wel- 
comed the  success  of  the  plan.    Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  150. 

2  England  could  not  well  avoid  conceding  American  independence,  hut 
Shelburne  meant  to  do  it  in  generous  fashion.  He  intended  not  merely 
peace,  he  said,  hut  "  reconciliation  with  America,  on  the  noblest  terms  and 
by  the  noblest  means."  The  well-disposed  ministry  lasted  only  long  enough 
to  make  peace. 


244  THE   REVOLUTION 

mountains  to  settle  in  fertile  lands  between  the  Ohio  and 
Cumberland  rivers,  in  what  we  now  call  Kentucky  and  Ten- 
nessee (§  163  ff.) ;  and,  during  the  war  itself,  many  thousands 
had  established  homes  in  that  region.  From  the  Kentucky 
settlements,  George  Rogers  Clark,  a  Virginia  officer,  in  incredi- 
bly daring  campaigns  (1778-1779),  had  captured  from  England 
the  old  French  posts  Kaskaskia  and  Cahokia,  on  the  Missis- 
sippi, and  Vincennes  on  the  Wabash ;  and  this  district,  though 
it  contained  still  only  old  French  settlers,  had  been  organized, 
like  Kentucky,  as  a  Virginia  county.  Tlie  Americans,  there- 
fore, had  ground  for  claiming  territory  to  the  Mississipjyi,1  and 
such  extension  of  territory  was  essential  to  our  future  development. 
England,  however,  was  expected  to  demand  our  surrender  of 
this  thinly  settled  western  region,  in  return  for  the  evacuation 
of  New  York,  Charleston,  and  other  cities  still  held  by  her 
armies.  Moreover,  France  and  Spain  secretly  intended  that 
the  treaty  should  shut  up  our  new  nation  between  the  Atlantic 
and  the  Appalachians,  leaving  to  England  the  northwest  terri- 
tory (which  had  been  legally  a  part  of  Canada,  §  141,  note), 
and  to  Spain  and  the  Indians  the  southwest,  adjoining  the 
Floridas,  which  Spain  had  now  recovered  from  England.  By 
the  treaty  of  1778,  we  were  bound  to  make  no  peace  with- 
out the  consent  of  France,  and  our  commissioners  were  now 
strictly  instructed  by  Congress  to  act  only  with  the  advice 
of  Vergennes,  the  French  minister.  Jay  and  Adams  suspected 
Vergennes  of  bad  faith,  and  finally  persuaded  Franklin  to  dis- 
regard the  instructions. 

The  peculiar  and  rather  disgraceful  instructions  from  Congress  to  the 
American  negotiators  ran,  that  they  were  "to  make  the  most  candid 
and  confidential  communications  upon  all  subjects  to  the  ministers  of 
our  generous  ally  .  .  .   [and]  to  undertake  nothing  in  the  negotiations 


1  In  1777,  Clark  received  a  letter  of  encouragement  from  Jefferson,  who, 
even  so  early,  felt  keenly  the  importance  of  the  West.  "Much  solicitude," 
he  wrote,  "  will  be  felt  for  the  outcome  of  your  expedition  ...  If  success- 
ful, it  will  have  an  important  bearing  in  ultimately  establishing  our  north- 
western boundary." 


THE   TREATY  OF  PEACE  245 

.  .  .  without  their  knowledge  and  concurrence."'  We  were  bound  in  honor 
and  by  treaty  not  to  make  peace  without  the  consent  of  France,  but  we 
were  under  no  obligation  to  depend  in  so  humiliating  a  manner  as  this, 
in  all  preliminary  negotiations,  upon  a  power  with  interests  necessarily 
different  from  ours.  France  perhaps  had  no  desire  to  injure  America, 
but  she  had  no  objection  to  leaving  it  helpless  and  dependent  upon  her 
favor,  and  she  did  wish  to  satisfy  her  ally  Spain,  whom  she  had  dragged 
into  the  war.  The  story  goes  that,  while  Franklin  and  Jay  were  dis- 
cussing the  situation,  Franklin  asked  in  surprise,  "  What !  would  you 
break  your  instructions  ?  "  "  As  I  break  this  pipe,"  said  Jay,  throwing 
his  pipe  into  the  fireplace.  Franklin  had  rendered  incalculable  diplomatic 
service  to  his  country,  but  his  long  and  intimate  relations  with  the 
French  government  had  unfitted  him  for  an  independent  course  in  this  crisis. 
Jay  probably  overestimated  the  hostile  designs  of  France,  but  modern 
investigations  prove  that  in  general  his  suspicions  were  well  founded. 

With  patriotic  daring,  the  American  commissioners  en- 
tered into  secret  negotiations  with  England  and  secured 
terms  which  Vergennes  could  not  well  refuse  to  approve  when 
the  draft  of  the  treaty  was  placed  before  him.  England 
acknowledged  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  with 
territory  reaching  to  the  Mississippi  and  from  the  Great  Lakes 
to  the  Floridas,1  surrendering,  without  consideration,  not  only 
the  seacoast  cities  she  held,  but  also  the  Northwest  posts, 
which  had  never  been  seen  by  an  American  army.  She  also 
granted  to  the  Americans  the  right  to  share  in  the  Newfound- 
land fisheries,  from  which  most  foreign  nations  were  shut  out. 
In  return,  the  American  Congress  recommended  to  the  various 
states  a  reasonable  treatment  of  the  Loyalists,2  and  promised 

1  See  map.  East  Florida  corresponded  pretty  well  with  the  modern  State. 
West  Florida  reached  to  the  Island  of  New  Orleans.  The  northern  boundary 
of  the  Floridas  was  declared  to  be  the  thirty-first  parallel,  but  a  secret  article 
of  the  treaty  (not  made  known  to  France)  provided  that  if  England  should 
recover  the  Floridas  from  Spain,  then  Florida  should  extend  north  to  the 
mouth  of  the  Yazoo.  Spain  learned  of  this  afterward  and  tried  to  secure  that 
boundary  for  herself. 

2  The  American  negotiators  had  told  the  English  commissioners  frankly 
that  the  "recommendation"  regarding  the  Loyalists  would  carry  no  weight; 
and  England  herself  afterwards  appropriated  large  sums  of  money  to  com- 
pensate partially  that  unfortunate  class  of  exiles. 


246  THE   REVOLUTION 

solemnly  (a  matter  which  should  have  gone  without  saying) 
that  no  State  should  interpose  to  prevent  Englishmen  from 
recovering  in  American  courts  the  debts  due  from  Americans 
before  the  war.  Xo  wonder  that  the  chagrined  Vergennes 
wrote  :  u  The  English  buy  the  peace,  rather  than  make  it.  .  .  . 
Their  concessions  regarding  boundaries,  fisheries,  and  the 
Loyalists  exceed  anything  I  had  thought  possible."' 

The  territorial  advantages  of  the  treaty  were  not  fullv  en- 
joyed by  the  United  States  for  some  twelve  years.  When  the 
English  forces  evacuated  the  American  seaports,  they  carried 
away  a  few  hundred  Xegroes,  who,  they  claimed,  had  become 
free  by  aiding  them  during  the  war,  and  whom  they  would  not 
now  surrender  to  their  old  masters.  The  American  State  gov- 
ernments made  this  a  pretext  for  deliberately  breaking  one  of 
the  most  reasonable  articles  of  the  treaty,  —  that  regarding 
British  debts.  Despite  the  pledged  faith  of  the  central  gov- 
ernment, State  after  State  passed  laws  to  prevent  the  collection 
of  such  debts  in  their  courts.  Meantime,  the  Americans  had 
not  at  first  been  ready  to  take  over  the  posts  on  the  Great 
Lakes ;  and  when  they  desired  to  do  so,  England  refused  to 
surrender  them,  because  of  these  infractions  of  the  treaty. 
Spain,  too,  angered  by  news  of  the  secret  article  with  England 
regarding  the  boundary  of  the  Floridas,  did  her  best  to  keep 
hostile  the  Indians  of  the  southwest,  and  declined  to  recog- 
nize our  claims  in  that  direction.  Our  actual  territory  north 
and  south  of  the  Ohio  reached  only  to  the  watersheds.  These 
difficulties  were  to  be  adjusted  finally  by  the  treaties  of  1794 
and  1795  (§§  231,  233). 

The  following  summary  of  the  Revolution  is  from  Theodore  Roose- 
velt's Gourerneitr  Morris  (4-6):  — 

"England's  treatment  of  her  American  subjects  was  thoroughly  self- 
ish ;  hut  that  her  conduct  towards  them  was  a  wonder  of  tyranny  will 
not  now  be  seriously  asserted.  On  the  contrary,  she  stood  decidedly 
above  the  general  European  standard  in  such  matters,  and  certainly 
treated  her  colonies  far  better  than  France  and  Spain  did  theirs  ;  and  she 
herself  had  undoubted  grounds  for  complaint  in,  for  example,  the  readi- 
ness of  the  Americans  to  claim  militarv  help  in  time  of  danger,  together 


ACTUAL  OCCUPATION 

AND 
TREATY  BOUNDARIES  1783 

_  —  Nominal  Boundary  of  treaty  of  *TS3 
,-.—  Real 
.*•;.".•/  Settlements  west  of  the  Mountains 

SCALE  OF   MILES 

0    100   200    300   400    500   GOO 


w^&fcS* 


fc 


V     \  \   \  . 


•r.- 

( ( '  ■ 

} 


\'(-. 


/ 


0-  '4-. 


-> 


/ 


SUMMARY  247 

with  their  frank  reluctance  to  pay  for  it.  ft  was  impossible  that  she 
should  be  so  far  in  advance  of  the  age  as  to  treat  her  colonies  as  equals. 
.  .  .  Yet,  granting  all  this,  the  fact  remains,  that  in  the  Revolutionary- 
War  the  Americans  stood  towards  the  British  as  the  Protestant  peoples 
stood  towards  the  Catholic  powers  in  the  sixteenth  century,  as  the  Par- 
liamentarians stood  towards  the  Stuarts  in  the  seventeenth,  or  as  the 
upholders  of  the  American  Union  stood  towards  the  confederate  slave- 
holders in  the  nineteenth.  That  is,  they  warred  victoriously  for  the 
right  in  a  struggle  whose  outcome  vitally  affected  the  welfare  of  the 
whole  human  race.  They  settled,  once  for  all,  that  thereafter  the  people 
of  English  stock  should  spread  at  will  over  the  world's  waste  spaces, 
keeping  all  their  old  liberties  and  winning  new  ones  ;  and  they  took  the 
first  and  longest  step  in  establishing  the  great  principle  that  thenceforth 
those  Europeans  who  by  their  strength  and  daring  founded  new  states 
abroad  should  be  deemed  to  have  done  so  for  their  own  profit  as  free- 
men, and  not  for  the  benefit  of  their  more  timid,  lazy,  or  contented 
brethren  who  stayed  behind." 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Howard's  Preliminaries  of  the  Bevolution 
and  Van  Tyne's  American  Bevolution  ("American  Nation"  series) 
make  together  an  admirable  treatment.  Woodburn's  Leckifs  American 
Bevolution  should  be  accessible,  as  a  scholarly  treatment  by  a  great  Eng- 
lish historian.  Fiske's  two  volumes  on  the  Revolution  are  delightful 
reading.  Trevellyan's  American  Bevolution  is  probably  the  best  history 
of  the  period,  but  it  is  rather  bulky  for  high  school  students.  Though 
written  by  an  Englishman,  it  is  sympathetically  American  in  tone,  and  it 
is  brilliant  in  treatment.  The  treaty  of  peace  may  be  studied  at  length 
in  the  opening  chapters  of  Fiske's  Critical  Period  or  of  McLaughlin's 
Confederation  and  Constitution.  The  Source  Book  continues  to  have 
abundant  material  through  the  early  years  of  the  Revolution. 


»s 


/    (JJVV.  I  j.    o  ^ 


> 


i? 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE    WEST 


"  The  West  is  the  most  American  part  of  America.  .  .  .  What  Europe 
is  to  Asia,  ivhat  England  is  to  the  rest  of  Europe,  what  America  is  to 
England,  —  that  the  western  States  and  Territories  are  to  the  eastern 
States.  —  James  Bryce. 

163.  Birth  in  the  Revolution.  —  It  is  natural  for  us  to  think 
of  the  years  1775-1783  as  given  wholly  to  patriotic  war  for 
political  independence.  But  during  just  those  years  thousands 
of  earnest  Americans  turned  away  from  that  contest  to  win 
industrial  independence  for  themselves  and  their  children  be- 
yond the  mountains.  While  the  old  Atlantic  sections  were 
fighting  England,  a  new  section  sprang  into  being,  fighting 
Indians  and  the  wilderness.  How  the  Scotch-Irish,  with  Ger- 
man and  Huguenot  companions,  moved  into  the  long  valleys 
of  the  Appalachians  early  in  the  eighteenth  century  has  been 
told  (§  112).  There  they  made  the  first  "West."  Now,  a 
generation  later,  their  Americanized  sons  were  to  make  a  greater 
and  truer  West  in  the  basin  of  the  Mississippi. 

During  the  Bevolution,  settlement  penetrated  only  into  the 
"  dark  and  bloody  ground  "  between  the  Ohio  and  its  southern 
branches.  This  district  had  long  been  a  famous  hunting 
ground,  where  Indians  of  the  north  and  south  slew  the  bison 
and  one  another.  But,  though  frequent  war  parties  flitted 
along  its  trails,  no  tribe  claimed  it  for  actual  occupation.  So 
here  lay  the  "  line  of  least  resistance  "  to  the  on-pushing  wave 
of  settlement. 

164.  England's  Futile  Opposition  to  Western  Settlement.  —  The  first 
European  mistress  of  the  land  between  the  Appalachians  and  the  Missis- 
sippi was  France.     England  claimed  it  from  the  first,  however,  and  in- 

248 


WATAUGA  249 

eluded  it  all  in  royal  grants  to  her  seaboard  colonies.  But  when  control 
actually  passed  to  England,  in  1763,  no  English  colony  was  allowed  to 
enter  into  possession.1  England  wished  to  avoid  Indian  wars,  which  were 
likely  to  follow  the  influx  of  the  rude  frontiersman  ;  and  possibly  the 
government  was  unduly  influenced  by  commercial  interests,  which  hoped 
fatuously  to  keep  the  vast  river  valley  as  a  hunting  preserve  for  the  fur 
trader.  Accordingly,  the  Boyal  Proclamation  of  1763  forbade  settlers 
to  trespass  in  the  Indian  country,  ordering  the  royal  governors  to  make  no 
land  grants  west  of  the  mountains ;  and  in  1774,  parliament  annexed  the 
western  territory,  as  far  south  as  the  Ohio,  to  the  Province  of  Quebec 
(§  141,  note).  A  like  policy  led,  in  1767,  to  enlarging  "Florida"  at  the 
expense  of  the  West  (Map,  facing  p.  246). 

Even  had  England  remained  mistress,  this  policy  of  exclusion  was 
doomed  to  certain  failure.  The  restless  border  farmers  already  felt 
crowded  in  the  old  colonies,  and  were  dissatisfied  with  their  rugged  and 
sterile  soil.  For  some  years  stray  hunters,  who  wandered  sometimes  as 
far  as  the  Mississippi,2  had  stirred  the  frontier  with  romantic  tales  of  the 
wonders  and  riches  of  the  great  western  basin  ;  and  just  before  the  Revo- 
lution, hardy  and  adventurous  families  pushed  the  line  of  American  settle- 
ment across  the  mountains  (§§  165-170). 


I.     THE   SOUTHWEST:    A   SELF-DEVELOPED   SECTION 
A.  Watauga 

165.  Causes.  —  In  1769  a  few  Virginia  frontiersmen  estab- 
lished their  families  in  the  valley  of  the  Watauga,  one  of  the 
headwaters  of  the  Tennessee.  At  first  the  new  settlement 
was  thought  to  lie  still  within  Virginia,  and  in  the  spring  of 
1771  it  was  reinforced  by  fugitive  Eegulators  from  North 
Carolina,  where  attempted  reforms  had  gone  down  in  bloody 
defeat  (§  137,  b).     The  same  summer,  however,  a  surveyor  ran 

1  Six  thousand  French  settlers  remained  in  the  district  under  English  rule 
until,  some  fifteen  years  later,  Clark's  campaigns  brought  them  under  Ameri- 
can authority  (§162).  They  were  distributed  for  the  most  part  in  three 
groups  in  the  Northwest,  — near  Detroit,  about  Vincennes,  and  at  the  Missis- 
sippi towns,  Kaskaskia  and  Cahokia.     (Map,  facing  p.  246.) 

2  All  boys  will  read  with  delight  Theodore  Roosevelt's  stirring  story  of 
"  Boone  and  the  Long  Hunters,  and  their  Hunting  in  No-man's  Land  "  {Win- 
ning of  the  West,  I,  ch.  vi). 


250  THE   SOUTHWEST 

out  the  southern  boundary  of  Virginia  and  found  that  Watauga 
lay  in  the  territory  claimed  by  North  Carolina.  That  dis- 
tracted colony  was  in  no  condition  to  care  for  so  distant  and 
inaccessible  a  section,1  nor  were  the  inhabitants  at  Watauga 
disposed  to  submit  to  further  Carolina  injustice.  Accordingly, 
in  1772  they  adopted  a  written  constitution  and  became  an 
independent,  self-governing  community  —  the  first  one  west  of 
the  mountains. 

166.  Frontier  Conditions.  —  Immigrants  came  in  little  groups 
of  families,  those  from  Carolina  by  a  long  detour  through 
Virginia.  No  wagon  roads  pointed  west ;  and  it  was  a  genera- 
tion more  before  the  white,  canvas-covered  wagon  (afterward 
so  familiar  as  the  "  prairie  schooner  ")  became  the  token  of  the 
immigrant.  At  best,  the  early  Southwest  had  dim  and  rugged 
trails  ("  traces  "),  along  which  men,  rifle  always  in  hand,  led 
pack  horses  loaded  with  young  children  and  with  a  few 
necessary  supplies,  while  the  women  and  older  children  drove 
the  few  lean  cattle. 

Two  men  stand  forth  in  this  western  movement  into  Ten- 
nessee,—  James  Robertson  and  John  Sevier,  playing  parts 
similar  to  those  taken  at  almost  the  same  time  in  Kentucky 
by  their  friends,  Daniel  Boone  and  George  Rogers  Clark 
(§§  168-171).  Robertson  was  a  mighty  hunter  who  had  spied 
out  the  land  to  find  a  better  home  for  his  family.  A  back- 
woodsman born,  he  had  learned  "  letters  and  to  spell "  after 
marriage,  from  his  wife ;  but  he  was  a  natural  leader,  with 
splendid  qualities  of  heart  and  head.  Sevier  was  a  "  gentle- 
man" of  old  Huguenot  family  and  of  some  culture.  He  was 
the  most  dashing  figure  of  the  early  frontier, — a  daring  Indian 


1  Communication  with  Virginia,  though  difficult  enough,  was  possible,  be- 
cause the  long  valleys  trending  to  the  northeast  ran  near  together  as  they 
entered  that  State.  But  a  hundred  miles  of  forest-clad  mountains,  without  a 
trail  fit  even  for  a  pack  horse,  divided  Watauga  from  the  nearest  settlements 
in  North  Carolina.  Watauga  itself  lay  with  mountains  to  the  west,  as  well  as 
to  the  east;  but  its  water  communication  with  the  Mississippi  justifies  us  in 
regarding  it  as  part  of  the  land  "  west  of  the  mountains." 


WATAUGA 


251 


fighter  and  an  idolized  statesman  among  his  rongh  com- 
panions. , 

The  essential  thing  about  Watauga,  however,  was  not  its 
leadership,  but  the  remarkable  individuality  and  democracy  of 
its  whole  population.  By  1774  the  settlers  were  grouped  in 
thirteen  "stations."  A 
"  station  "  was  a  stock- 
aded fort  of  considerable 
size.  One  side  was 
formed  usually  by  a 
close  row  of  log  huts, 
facing  in.  The  remain- 
ing sides,  with  a  log 
"  blockhouse "  at  each 
corner,  were  a  close 
fence  of  hewn  "  pickets," 
considerably  higher  than 
a  man's  head,  driven 
firmly  into  the  ground 
and  bound  together. 
Within  were  supply 
sheds  for  a  short  siege, 
and  sometimes  a  central 
and    larger   blockhouse, 

—  a  sort  of  inner  "keep."  Stockade  and  blockhouses  were 
loopholed  at  convenient  intervals  for  rifles,  and,  except  for 
surprise  or  fire,  such  a  fort  was  impregnable,  even  when  de- 
fended by  a  relatively  small  force,  against  any  attack  without 
cannon. 

The  fort,  however,  was  only  for  times  of  extraordinary 
danger.  Ordinarily,  the  families  lived  apart,  each  in  its  log 
cabin  upon  its  own  farm.  These  holdings  were  usually  of 
from  four  hundred  to  a  thousand  acres;  but  for  many  years 
they  remained  forest-covered,  except  for  a  small  stump-dotted 
"clearing,"  about  each  cabin.  The  clearings  nearest  one  an- 
other were  often  separated  by  miles  of  primitive  forest,  with 


-.-.  30* s 

M  -hjh..          '1 

t  - ,. 

Fort  Steuben,  1787. 
(From  a  recent  restoration.) 


252  THE   SOUTHWEST 

communication  only  by  trails  blazed  with  a  hatchet  on  tree 
trunks ;  and,  at  an  alarm  of  Indians,  all  families  of  a  "  station  " 
abandoned  these  scattered  homes  and  sought  ref  age  within  the 
stockade. 

In  contrast  with  the  early  New  England  "village"  and  with  the 
southern  "plantation,"  it  is  plain  that  this  western  type  of  settlement 
excelled,  whether  for  combination  against  an  outside  foe  or  for  individu- 
ality and  equality.  The  two  qualities  that  especially  characterized  this 
new  West,  says  Theodore  Roosevelt,  were  "capacity  for  self-help  and 
capacity  for  combination."  The  latter  was  typified,  not  merely  by  the 
common  stockade  for  war  and  by  the  gathering  of  "  neighbors  "  from 
many  miles  for  a  "house  raising,"  but,  even  more  fundamentally,  in  the 
early  political  association  to  maintain  social  order(§  167). 

167.  The  Watauga  "  Articles."  —  In  the  spring  of  1772  the 
men  of  the  thirteen  forts  gathered  at  Robertson's  station  in 
mass  meeting,  to  organize  a  government.  This  meeting  adopted 
Articles  of  Association,  —  "a  written  constitution,  the  first 
ever  adopted  west  of  the  mountains,  or  by  a  community  of 
American-born  freemen."1  The  document  declared  for  abso- 
lute religious  freedom,  and  based  all  action,  without  thought 
of  other  procedure,  upon  manhood  suffrage.2  A  representative 
court  of  thirteen,  one  from  each  station,  chose  a  smaller  court 
of  five  members  in  whom  were  vested  the  immediate  powers  of 
government.3  This  body  of  commissioners  held  regular  meet- 
ings, and  managed  affairs  with  sound  sense,  if  with  little  regard 
for  legal  technicalities.     In  general  they  claimed  to  take  the 


1  The  phrase  is  Roosevelt's,  based  upon  an  earlier  but  clumsier  expression 
of  Justin  Winsor's.  The  Fundamental  Orders  of  Connecticut  (§  88)  had  been 
formed,  of  course,  by  English-nurtured  men. 

2  To  give  due  credit  to  the  men  of  Watauga,  the  student  must  remember 
how  far  short  of  such  democracy  fell  the  Revolutionary  constitutions  of  the 
eastern  states  four  or  five  years  later  (§§  152-155). 

» This  was  "representative"  democracy,  not  "direct  democracy."     The 
large  farms  in  the  Southwest  inclined  its  people  to  the  county  type,  rather 
>a.i  the  town-meeting  type,  of  government. 


KENTUCKY  253 

law  of  Virginia  as  a  guide ;  but,  to  all  intents,  Watauga  was 
for  six  years  an  absolutely  independent  political  community. 
Then,  in  1778,  when  the  Revolution  had  reformed  North  Caro- 
lina, Watauga  recognized  the  authority  of  that  State  and 
became  Washington  County. 

B.    Kentucky 

168.  The  First  of  the  Prairies.  —  Among  the  many  daring 
hunters  and  Indian  fighters,  who,  preceding  settlement,  had 
ventured  from  time  to  time  into  the  bloody  hunting  grounds 
south  of  the  Ohio,  one  man  was  more  than  hunter  and  explorer. 
As  early  as  1760,  Daniel  Boone  hunted  west  of  the  mountains ; 
and  in  1769  (the  year  Wratauga  was  founded)  he  went  on  a  "  long 
hunt "  there  with  six  companions.  After  five  weeks'  progress 
through  the  hitherto  interminable  forest  stretching  contin- 
uously from  the  shore  of  the  Atlantic,  this  little  party  broke 
through  its  western  fringe  and  stood  upon  the  verge  of  the  vast 
prairies  of  America.  They  had  come  to  the  now  famous  "  blue- 
grass  "  district  of  Kentucky. 

Hitherto,  except  for  petty  Indian  clearings,  American  colo- 
nists had  had  to  win  homes  slowly  with  the  axe  from  the 
stubborn  forest.  Now  before  the  eyes  of  these  explorers  there 
spread  away  a  lovely  land,  where  stately  groves  and  running 
waters  intermingled  with  rich  open  prairies  and  grassy  mead- 
ows,1 inviting  the  husbandman  to  easy  possession  and  teeming 
with  game  for  the  hunter,  —  herds  of  bison,  elk,  and  deer,  as 
well  as  bear  and  wolves,  in  abundance  unguessed  before  by 
English-speaking  men. 

In  the  following  months,  hard  on  the  trails  of  the  hunters, 
followed  various  small  expeditions  of  backwoods  surveyors 
and  would-be  settlers,  spite  of  frequent  death  by  the  scalping 


lrThe  prairies  proper,  even  when  reached,  did  not  at  first  attract  settlers. 
The  lack  of  fuel  and  often  of  water  more  than  made  up  for  difficulty  of  clear- 
ing forest  land.    But  Kentucky  offered  a  happy  mixture. 


254  THE   SOUTHWEST 

knife  and  at  the  stake.1  In  particular,  Boone  returned  again 
and  again,  and,  in  1773,  he  sold  his  Carolina  home,  to  settle 
in  the  new  land  of  promise.  His  expedition  was  repulsed, 
however,  by  a  savage  Indian  attack,  and  the  next  year  the 
opening  of  a  great  Indian  War  along  the  Virginian  and  Penn- 
sylvanian  border  drove  every  settler  out  of  Kentucky. 

169.  Lord  Dunmore's  War. — Without  provocation,  a  dastard  White 
trader  had  murdered  the  helpless  family  of  Logan,  a  friendly  Iroquois 
chieftain  dwelling  on  a  branch  of  the  upper  Ohio.  In  horrible  retaliation 
for  this  infamous  deed,  a  mighty  Indian  confederacy  was  soon  busied  with 
torch  and  tomahawk  on  the  western  frontiers.  Pennsylvania  was  the  worst 
sufferer ;  but  the  dilatory  government  there  failed  to  protect  its  citizens. 
Virginia,  however,  acted  promptly.  To  crush  the  confederacy  she  sent 
an  army  far  beyond  her  line  of  settlement,  into  the  distant  Northwest,  — 
where,  indeed,  she  had  always  claimed  jurisdiction,  though  parliament 
had  just  annexed  the  territory  to  Quebec  (§  164).  This  force  was  com- 
posed chiefly  of  hardy  frontier  riflemen,  uniformed  in  their  customary 
deerskin  hunting  shirts ;  but,  by  a  curious  contrast,  it  was  led  by  an  Eng- 
lish earl,  the  royal  governor,  Lord  Dunmore.  The  rear  division  of  the 
army,  when  about  to  cross  the  Ohio  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha,  was 
surprised,  through  the  splendid  generalship  of  the  Indian  leader  Corn- 
stalk, by  the  whole  force  of  the  natives ;  but,  after  a  stubborn  pitched 
battle,  the  frontiersmen  won  a  decisive  victory. 

This  Battle  of  the  Great  Kanawha,  with  the  war  which  it  brought  to  a 
close,  is  as  important  in  its  consequences  as  any  conflict  ever  waged  be- 
tween Whites  and  Redmen.  Says  Theodore  Roosevelt :  "  It  so  cowed  the 
northern  Indians  that  for  two  or  three  years  they  made  no  organized 
attempt  to  check  the  White  advance.  .  .  .  [It]  gave  opportunity  for 
Boone  to  settle  in  Kentucky  [§  170]  and  therefore  for  Robertson  to  settle 
Middle  Tennessee  [§  171],  and  for  Clark  to  conquer  Illinois  and  the  North- 
west. It  was  the  first  link  in  the  chain  of  causes  that  gave  us  for  our 
western  boundary  in  1783  the  Mississippi,  and  not  the  Allegheniesy 

170.  Permanent  settlement  in  central  Kentucky  began  the 
next  spring  (1775).  For  a  few  months  it  had  the  form  of 
a  proprietary  colony.    Between  1740  and  1776,  several  attempts 

!Very  soon,  indeed,  the  colonists  learned  that  the  Woods  Indian  of  the 
West  —  armed  now  almost  as  well  as  the  Whites  —  was  a  far  more  formida- 
ble foe  than  the  weak  tribes  of  the  coast  had  been  to  the  original  European 
settlers. 


KENTUCKY  255 

had  been  made  to  colonize  western  territory  by  this  method 
(sogtsef  ul  a  century  before  on  the  Atlantic  coast *) ;  but  none  of 
the  other  projects  had  proceeded  as  far  as  this  one  did.  A  cer- 
tain Henderson,  a  citizen  of  North  Carolina,  bought  from  the 
southern  Indians  their  rights  to  a  great  tract  in  central  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee.  He  named  the  proposed  colony  Tran- 
sylvania, and  secured  Boone  as  his  agent.  In  March  and  April, 
Boone  and  a  strong  company  marked  out  the  Wilderness  Road 2 
and  began  to  build  "Boone's  Fort,",  where  Henderson  soon 
arrived  with  a  considerable  colony.  Many  small  "forts" 
sprang  up  at  almost  the  same  time,  without  connection  at  first 
with  Henderson's  colony ;  but  it  was  the  strength  of  Boones- 
boro  that  sheltered  the  others. 

171.  A  Virginia  County:  Basis  for  the  Conquest  of  the  North- 
west. —  Henderson  made  many  land  grants  to  settlers,  and 
assembled  a  legislative  body  which  passed  various  laws  and 
which  applied  to  the  Continental  Congress  (1775)  for  admission 
as  a  separate  colony  into  the  colonial  confederacy.  But  the 
Revolution  ruined  all  prospect  of  English  sanction  for  Hender- 
son's proprietary  claims  ;  and  in  any  case  the  frontiersmen  had 
little  notion  for  paying  quit-rents,  however  small,  for  the  lands 
they  subdued.  Virginia,  too,  firmly  asserted  her  claim  to  the 
territory.  In  1776,  Henderson  passed  from  the  scene;  and, 
the  next  year,  Kentucky,  with  its  present  bounds,  was  organized 
as  a  county  of  Virginia. 


1  This  method  has  been  revived  in  the  nineteenth  century  in  the  coloniza- 
tion of  Africa,  —  as  in  the  British  South  African  and  the  German  West  African 
Company. 

2  This  was  merely  a  narrow  bridle  path,  through  the  more  passable  parts 
of  the  forest  and  across  the  easiest  fords,  leading  two  hundred  miles  from  the 
Holston  River  (near  Watauga)  into  central  Kentucky.  In  the  worst  places, 
the  thick  underbrush  was  cut  out  ;  but  much  of  the  time  only  the  direction 
was  blazed  on  trees.  The  Wilderness  Road  (with  a  later  branch  into  Virginia 
through  the  Cumberland  Gap)  long  remained  the  chief  means  of  communica- 
tion with  the  Atlantic  regions.  Immigrants  soon  began,  it  is  true,  to  float 
down  the  Ohio ;  but  that  route  was  much  more  exposed  to  Indian  attack,  and 
return  up  the  river  in  that  day  was  impossible. 


256 


THE   SOUTHWEST 


In  spite  of  savage  Indian  raids,  and  of  a  new  Indian  War  in  1777, 
Kentucky  was  now  definitely  won  for  English-speaking  America.  With 
it,  much  more  was  won.  Kentucky  already  contained  several  hundred 
fighting  men,  and  it  became  the  base  from  which  George  Rogers  Clark 
conquered  the  Northwest  (§  162). 1  Before  the  close  of  the  Revolution, 
Kentucky's  population  exceeded  25,000  ;  and  when  peace  made  Indian 
hostility  less  likely,  a  still  larger  immigration  began  to  crowd  the  Wilder- 
ness Road  and  the  Ohio.  Meanwhile,  there  had  been  established  west  of 
the  mountains  a  third  center  of  settlement  (C  below). 

C.    Central    Tennessee 

172.  The  Cumberland  Settlements.  — Watauga  was  now  ready 
to  become  the  mother  of  a  still  more  western  colony.  Popula- 
tion had  grown  rapidly,  and  an  occasional  straggling  village 


Western  Settlement,  1769-1784. 

had  succeeded  an  earlier  "  fort."  At  the  end  of  ten  years,  it  was 
no  longer  a  place  for  the  real  frontiersmen ;  and,  in  1779, 
Robertson,  with  some  of  his  more  restless  neighbors,  migrated 
once   more  to  a  new  wilderness   home   in   west-central  Ten- 


Special  Report. 


CUMBERLAND   SETTLEMENTS  257 

nessee,  on  the  bend  of  the  Cumberland.  Romantic  as  is  the 
history  of  this  new  island  of  civilization,  we  can  stop  only  for 
its  new  illustration  of  a  democracy  founded  on  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  governed. 

As  in  Kentucky,  so  in  this  fertile  district,  population  thronged 
in,  with,  no  doubt,  the  usual  proportion  of  undesirable  frontier 
characters  ;  and  the  settlers  found  it  needful  at  once  to  provide 
a  government.  May  1,  1780,  a  convention  of  representatives 
at  Nashboro  adopted  a  "  constitution,"  which,  however,  was 
styled  by  the  makers  merely  "  a  temporary  method  of  restraining 
the  licentious."  A  few  days  later,  this  "social  compact"  was 
signed  by  every  adult  male  settler,  256  in  number.  It  provided 
for  a  court  of  twelve  "judges,"  chosen  by  manhood  suffrage 
and  apportioned  among  the  eight  stations  in  proportion  to 
their  population.  If  dissatisfied  with  its  representative,  a 
station  might  at  any  time  hold  a  new  election  (the  modern 
"recall").  Like  the  early  Watauga  commissioners,  the  "judges" 
exercised  all  powers  of  government. 

This  extreme  democracy,  however,  expressly  recognized  the 
right  of  North  Carolina  to  rule  the  district  when  she  should  be 
ready;  and  in  1783  that  State  organized  the  Cumberland 
settlements  into  Davidson  County. 

D.   Movements  for  Statehood  and  for  "Separation" 

173.  Twofold  Character  of  Separatist  Movements. — For  some  years, 
only  feeble  ties  held  the  Western  settlements  to  the  Atlantic  States.  The 
men  of  the  West  made  continuous  efforts  for  Statehood,  contrary  to  the 
will  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  and  of  Congress ;  and,  at  one  time 
or  another,  in  each  of  the  three  groups  of  settlements,  these  legitimate 
attempts  merged  obscurely  in  plots  for  complete  separation  from  the 
eastern  confederacy.1  For  even  this  extreme  phase  of  the  movement, 
there  was  great  provocation  in  the  gross  neglect  shown  by  the  East  toward 
pressing  needs  in  the  West  (§§  174,  175). 

1  This  twofold  character  is  illustrated  in  the  exceedingly  interesting 
history  of  the  State  of  Frankland  (which  should  be  made  a  subject  for  special 
report;  cf.  also  Source  Book,  No.  148).  The  contrast  between  the  political 
spirit  of  the  French  and  English-speaking  peoples  in  America  is  shown  forcibly 


258  THE   SOUTHWEST 

"T  174.  "Colonial  Policy"  of  the\East.  —  The  older  States  had 
just  rebelled  against  the  colonial  policy  of  Great  Britain,  but 
they  showed  a  strong  inclination  to  retain  a  like  selfish  policy 
toward  their  own  "  colonies  "  in  the  West.  Even  in  the  imper- 
ative matter  of  protection  against  Indians,  they  hampered  the 
frontier  without  giving  aid.  Repeated  petitions  were  made  by 
the  Westerners  (1)  to  control  directly  their  own  militia; 
(2)  to  be  divided  into  smaller  counties  —  with  courts  more 
accessible ;  and  (3)  to  have  a  "  court  of  appeal "  established  on 
their  side  the  mountains.1  These  reasonable  requests  were 
refused  contemptuously  by  North  Carolina,  and  granted  only 
grudgingly  by  Virginia.  More  distant  Eastern  communities, 
too,  notably  New  England,  manifested  a  harsh  jealousy  (§  205). 
-\-  175.  The  West  and  Spain.  —  For  nearly  all  its  course,  one 
bank  of  the  Mississippi  was  American ;  but,  by  the  treaties  of 
1783,  toward  the  mouth  both  banks  were  Spain's.  According 
to  the  commercial  policy  of  past  ages,  Spain  could  close  against 
us  this  sole  commercial  outlet.  The  surplus  farm  produce  of 
the  West  could  not  be  carried  to  the  East  over  bridlepaths. 
Without  some  route  to  the  outside  world,  it  was  valueless ; 
and  the  only  possible  route  in  that  day  was  the  huge  arterial 
system  of  natural  waterways  to  the  Gulf. 

Early  in  the  progress  of  Western  settlement,  the  backwoods- 
men began  to  float  their  grain  and  stock  in  flatboats  down  the 
smaller  streams  to  the  Ohio,  and  so  on  down  the  great  central 
river  to  New  Orleans.  They  encountered  shifting  shoals,  hid- 
den snags,  treacherous  currents,  savage  ambuscades,  and  the 
hardships  and  dangers  of  wearisome  return  on  foot  through  the 

by  comparing  with  such  efforts  at  self-government  in  the  Southwest  the  con- 
temporary complaints  of  the  French  settlers  north  of  the  Ohio.  These  settle- 
ments (§  164,  note)  were  subject  to  troubles  like  those  of  their  southern 
neighbors  ;  but  they  seem  not  to  have  thought  of  asking,  to  say  nothing  of 
taking,  enlarged  powers  of  self-government.  Instead,  they  sent  to  Congress 
a  pitiful  petition  that  "  governors "  might  be  appointed  over  them.  Cf. 
Roosevelt,  Winning  of  the  West,  II,  184. 

1  Many  a  poor  man  found  legal  redress  for  wrong  impossible  because  a 
richer  opponent  could  appeal  to  a  seaboard  supreme  court. 


STATEHOOD   AND   SEPARATION  259 

Indian-haunted  forests.  These  natural  perils  the  frontier 
trader  accepted  light-heartedly  ;  but  he  was  moved  to  bitter 
wrath,  when  —  his  journey  accomplished — fatal  harm  be- 
fell him  at  his  port.  He  had  to  have  "  right  of  deposit "  at 
New  Orleans,  to  reship  to  ocean  vessels.  Spanish  governors 
granted  or  withheld  that  privilege  at  pleasure — until  1795, 
when  a  treaty  secured  it,  nominally,  for  a  brief  and  uncertain 
period  (§  233).  Even  then,  ruinous  bribes  were  still  necessary 
to  prevent  confiscation  by  Spanish  officials  on  some  pretense. 

For  many  years  our  government  had  shown  little  eagerness 
in  this  life-or-death  matter;  and  the  West  seethed  with  furious 
demands  for  possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  How 
to  get  it  mattered  little.  The  Westerners  would  help  Congress 
win  it  from  Spain;  or  they  were  ready  to  try  to  win  it  by 
themselves,  setting  up,  if  need  be,  as  a  separate  nation ;  or 
some  of  them  were  ready  even  to  buy  the  essential  privilege  by 
putting  their  settlements  under  the  Spanish  flag. 

The  last  measure  was  never  discussed  widely ;  but  nearly  every  one  of 
the  great  leaders  was  at  some  time  concerned  in  such  dubious  negotiations 
with  Spanish  agents, — notably  Sevier,  Robertson,  and  Clark.1  Ameri- 
can nationality  and  American  patriotism  were  just  in  the  making.  It 
was  natural  for  even  good  men  to  look  almost  exclusively  to  the  welfare 
of  their  own  section  ;  and  the  action  of  these  really  great  leaders  does  not 
expose  them  to  charges  of  lack  of  patriotism  in  any  shameful  sense,  —  as 
would  be  the  case  in  a  later  day.  Still  we  should  see  that  they  struggled 
in  this  matter  on  the  wrong  side.  It  was  well  that,  about  1790,  they  were 
pushed  aside  by  a  new  generation  of  immigrants,  who  were  able  to  "  think 
continentally." 

176.  Spain's  Attitude. — On  her  side,  Spain  felt  her  possessions  in 
America  threatened  by  the  new  Republic,  —  especially  by  any  advance  of 
its  rude  strength  beyond  the  Appalachians.  She  tried  to  check  the  peril 
(1)  by  arousing  the  Southwestern  Indians  against  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee  ;  (2)  by  fostering  movements  for  independence  in  those  com- 
munities, so  that  they  might  become  buffer  states  between  her  and  the 

1  Cf.  Roosevelt's  Winning  of  the  West,  III.  These  men  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  a  fellow  like  General  Wilkinson,  who,  while  an  American  officer, 
took  a  pension  from  Spain  for  assisting  her  interests  in  the  West. 


260  THE  NORTHWEST 

United  States ;  and  (3)  by  inducing  the  Westerners  to  place  themselves 
under  her  protection. 

How  dangerous  this  last  would  have  proved  is  suggested  by  later 
events  in  West  Florida  and  Texas  (§§261,  339).  Indeed  (if  this  is 
any  excuse),  it  is  possible  that,  under  pretense  of  accepting  Spanish  sov- 
ereignty, Sevier  and  Clark  expected  to  play  the  part  of  splendid  free- 
booters, and  rob  that  decaying  power  of  vast  realms  for  English-speaking 
civilization. 

II.    THE   NORTHWEST   A  NATIONAL   DOMAIN 

177.  A  significant  contrast  is  indicated  in  the  headings  for  Divisions  I 
and  II.  Except  for  Henderson's  futile  project,  there  was  no  paternalism 
in  the  Southwest.  Settlement  there  was  predominantly  individualistic. 
No  statesman  planned  it;  no  general  directed  the  conquest  of  territory ; 
no  older  government,  State  or  Federal,  fostered  development.  The 
Southwest  was  won  from  savage  man  and  savage  nature  by  little  bands 
of  self-associated  backwoodsmen,  piece  by  piece,  from  the  Watauga  to 
the  Rio  Grande,  in  countless  bloody  but  isolated  skirmishes  and  through 
self-determined  action,  generation  after  generation.  Settlement  preceded 
governmental  organization. 

In  the  Northwest,  government  preceded  settlement.  The  first  colonists 
found  (i)  territorial  divisions  marked  off  for  governments,  and  the  form 
of  government  largely  determined;  (2)  land  surveys  ready  for  the 
farmer;  and  (3)  some  military  protection.  All  this  was  afforded  in  ad- 
vance by  the  national  government.  This  child  of  the  nation,  therefore, 
escaped  the  tendencies  to  separatism  which  we  have  noted  in  the  South- 
west. 

A.    Creation  of  the  National  Domain 

178.  State  Claims.1  —  Six  States  could  make  no  claim  to  any 
part  of  the  West,  —  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  New 
Jersey,  New  Hampshire,  and  Rhode  Island ;  while  the  title  of 
South  Carolina  applied  only  to  a  strip  of  land  some  twenty 
miles  wide.  But,  immediately  after  the  Revolution,  the  other 
six  States  reasserted  loudly  old  claims  to  all  the  vast  region 
between  the  mountains  and  the  Mississippi. 

1  The  map  facing  page  265  should  be  studied  as  part  of  the  text,  for  pur- 
poses of  this  topic.     Cf.  also  Source  Book,  §  146. 


THE  NATIONAL  DOMAIN  261 

Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  it  has  been  noted,  were  claimed  by  Virginia 
and  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia  long  insisted  upon  a  flimsy  title  to  a 
wide  reach  of  land  extending  to  the  Mississippi.  So  far,  there  were  at 
least  no  conflicts  of  title  between  the  States.  North  of  the  Ohio,  the  case 
was  more  complex.  Virginia  claimed  all  the  Northwest,  under  her  old 
charter  (§§  25,  a,  33,  37,  note)  ;  and  she  had  done  much  to  give  real 
life  to  this  weak  title  by  taking  steps  toward  actual  possession  in  Dun- 
more's  War  and  Clark's  conquest  of  Illinois,  and,  even  more,  in  the 
organization  and  administration  of  the  district  from  Vincennes  to  Kas- 
kaskia  as  the  County  of  Illinois  (1779-1784).  New  York  also  claimed  all 
the  Northwest,  but  by  the  slightest  of  all  titles.  The  middle  third  of  the 
Northwest  was  claimed  also  by  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  on  the 
basis  of  ancient  charters. 

179.  Maryland  insists  upon  a  Common  Domain  and  a  New  Co- 
lonial Policy.  —  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  Maryland,  already 
hemmed  in  by  larger  neighbors,  looked  with  rising  alarm  upon 
the  probability  of  greater  expansion  for  those  neighbors  through 
these  amazing  claims.  Moreover,  the  States  with  western 
lands  at  once  arranged  to  use  them  in  paying  Eevolutionary 
expenses,  while  the  small  States  taxed  themselves  in  hard  cash 
for  the  war  which  really  won  this  territory  from  England. 

These  conditions  gave  rise  to  intense  dissatisfaction,  and  four 
States  refused  to  ratify  the  Articles  of  Confederation  (§  186). 
In  a  year  or  so,  however,  all  but  Maryland1  submitted  to  the 
pressure  from  Congress.  Indeed,  they  had  been  willing  all 
along  to  leave  jurisdiction  over  the  western  territory  to  the 
claimant  States,  if  only  they  themselves  might  share  in  the 
money  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  lands.  Maryland,  no  doubt, 
was  roused  to  action  by  a  like  selfish  motive ;  but  enlightened 
selfishness  in  her  case  led  to  the  broadest  patriotism.  She 
devised,  and,  after  a  stubborn  four-years'  contest,  she  estab- 
lished for  all  America  a  wholly  new  and  glorious  colonial 
policy,  —  perhaps  the  most  original  American  contribution  to 
politics. 

1By  the  terms  of  the  Articles,  that  constitution  could  not  go  into  effeot  A 
until  ratified  by  every  State.  /      V 


c 


262  THE  NORTHWEST 

As  early  as  November,  1776,  the  Maryland  Convention  that 
framed  a  State  constitution  set  forth  also  this  resolution : 
"That  the  back  lands,  claimed  by  the  British  crown,  if  secured 
by  the  blood  and  treasure  of  all,  ought,  in  reason,  justice,  and 
policy,  to  be  considered  a  common  stock,  to  be  parcelled  out  by 
Congress  into  free,  convenient,  and  independent  Governments,  as 
the  wisdom  of  that  body  shall  hereafter  direct."  Nearly  a  year 
later  (October  15,  1777),  the  Maryland  delegates  in  Congress 
sought  to  have  that  body  proclaim  that  it  should  have  power 
to  fix  the  western  bounds  of  the  States  claiming  to  the  Mis- 
sissippi, and,  at  proper  times,  to  lay  out  the  lands  west  of  such 
boundaries  into  new  "  States."  The  Articles  of  Confederation 
were  then  being  considered  by  Congress ;  and  the  only  imme- 
diate result  of  Maryland's  proposal  was  the  addition  to  the 
Articles  (at  Virginia's  insistence)  of  a  provision  that  no  State 
should  ever  be  deprived  of  territory  by  Congress.  The  Arti- 
cles were  submitted  to  the  States  for  ratification  in  November, 
1777 ;  and  by  February,  1779,  every  State  except  Maryland  had 
ratified.  Further  delay  was  in  many  ways  perilous  to  the  new 
Union ;  and  other  States  charged  Maryland  bitterly  with  lack 
of  patriotism.  Virginia,  in  particular,  insinuated  repeatedly 
that  the  western  lands  were  only  an  "ostensible  cause"  for 
Maryland's  delay.  With  clear-eyed  purpose,  however,  that 
little  State  held  out,  throwing  the  blame  for  delay  where  it 
belonged,  — on  Virginia  and  the  other  States  claiming  the 
West ;  and  in  May,  1779,  she  renewed  her  instructions  to  her 
delegates  in  Congress  against  signing  the  Articles,  —  repeat- 
ing in  precise  words  her  resolution  of  1776. 

180.  The  Cessions.  —  Even  in  the  landed  States,  public  opin- 
ion gradually  shifted  to  the  support  of  the  view  so  gallantly 
championed  by  Maryland  ;  and  a  year  later  (October  10,  1780), 
the  Continental  Congress  formally  pledged  the  Union  to  the 
new  policy.  A  Congressional  resolution  solemnly  urged  the 
States  to  cede  the  western  lands  to  the  central  government,  to 
be  disposed  of  "for  the  common  good  of  the  United  States," 
guaranteeing  also  that  all  lands  so  ceded  would  be  "formed 


The  United  States  in  1783— State  Claims  and  Cessions 


THE  NATIONAL  DOMAIN  263 

into  separate  republican  States,  ivhich  shall  become  members  of 
the  federal  union  and  have  the  same  rights  of  freedom,  sovereignty, 
and  independence  as  the  other  States."  l 

New  York  had  already  promised  to  relinquish  her  western 
claims,  and  now  Connecticut  promised  to  do  likewise.  In  Jan- 
uary, 1781,  Virginia's  promise  followed,  for  the  lands  north  of 
the  Ohio.  The  formal  deeds  of  cession  were  delayed  by  long' 
negotiations  over  precise  terms,  but  the  general  result  was  now 
certain.  Maryland  had  won.  Accordingly  (March  1, 1781),  she 
ratified  the  Articles.  That  constitution  at  last  went  into  oper- 
ation, —  and  the  new  confederacy  possessed  a  "  national  domain." 

Kentucky  remained  part  of  Virginia  until  admitted  into  the  Union  as 
a  State  in  1792  ;  and  Virginia  did  not  actually  cede  the  Northwest  until 
1784, — retaining  then  the  "Military  Reserve"  (a  triangular  tract  of 
several  million  acres  just  north  of  the  Ohio)  wherewith  to  pay  her  sol- 
diers. Connecticut  completed  her  cession  in  1785,  and  Massachusetts 
made  hers  in  1786.  Connecticut  retained  3,250,000  acres  south  of  Lake 
Erie.  This  district  was  soon  settled  largely  by  New  Englanders,  and  was 
long  known  as  "The  Western  Reserve  "  ;  but  in  1800,  when  Connecticut 
had  sold  her  property  in  the  lands  (to  build  up  her  school  fund),  she 
granted  jurisdiction  over  the  settlers  to  the  United  States.  North  Caro- 
lina ceded  Tennessee  in  1790,  and  South  Carolina  had  given  up  her  little 
tract  three  years  earlier ;  but  Georgia  clung  to  her  claims  until  the  year  1802.2 


1  This  completed  the  suggestion  for  what  has  come  to  be  the  American  plan 
of  colonization.  Previously,  the  world  has  known  only  two  plans.  Greek 
and  Phoenician  colonies  became  free  by  separating  at  once  from  the  mother 
cities :  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century  colonies  of  European  countries 
had  remained  united  to  the  mother  countries,  but  in  a  condition  of  humiliating 
dependence.  For  the  United  States  Maryland  had  devised  a  new  plan  combin- 
ing permanent  union  with  freedom.  The  student  will  perceive  that  this  great 
political  invention  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  &  federal  union,  such  as  America 
was  then  forming. 

2  Massachusetts  had  claimed  also  what  is  now  western  New  York ;  but  in 
1786  the  two  States  agreed  that  New  York  should  have  the  jurisdiction  and 
Massachusetts  the  property.  This  dispute  had  delayed  Massachusetts'  surren- 
der of  the  lands  farther  to  the  West.  Connecticut,  too,  had  waged  a  long 
quarrel,  rising  almost  to  a  war,  with  Pennsylvania,  over  her  claims  to  land 
within  that  State.  This  matter  was  finally  submitted  to  arbitration  by  Con- 
gress, which  decided  in  favor  of  Pennsylvania.  Resentment  in  Connecticut 
delayed  for  a  time  the  cession  of  her  other  lands. 


264  THE  NORTHWEST 


B.     National  Organization 

181.  The  Ordinance  of  1784.  —  It  was  now  for  Congress  to 
make  good  its  promise  in  the  resolution  of  October,  1780. 
Accordingly,  when  Thomas  Jefferson,  as  a  Virginia  delegate 
in  Congress,  presented  to  that  body  Virginia's  final  cession,  he 
also  proposed  a  plan  of  government  for  all  territory  "  ceded  or 
to  be  ceded."  This  plan  was  soon  enacted  into  law  and  is 
commonly  known  as  the  Ordinance  of  178 Jf.  It  deserves  study, 
as  the  first  American  legislation  l  for  the  political  organization 
of  "  Territories  "  (or  colonies),  and  for  its  influence  upon  its 
yet  more  important  successor,  the  Ordinance  of  1787  (§  182). 

Jefferson  assumed  that  the  States  would  promptly  complete  their  ces- 
sions. Accordingly,  the  Ordinance  of  1784  cut  up  all  the  western  terri- 
tory into  proposed  States.  The  old  States  were  to  be  bounded  on  the 
west  by  the  meridian  passing  through  the  mouth  of  the  Kanawha.  West 
of  that  line  there  were  to  be  two  tiers  of  new  States,  each  one  bounded  by 
geographical  parallels  and  meridians.     Each  State  was  to  be  two  degrees 


1  Some  months  before,  in  1783,  Jefferson  had  been  made  chairman  of  a 
committee  to  prepare  a  plan  for  government  for  the  West ;  and  now  the  com- 
mittee reported.  Although  this  was  the  first  legislative  action  upon  the  mat- 
ter, it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  several  individuals  had  proposed  plans 
previously.  Apparently,  the  earliest  such  plan  was  that  suggested  by 
Thomas  Paine,  in  1779,  in  The  Public  Good  (written  mainly  to  advocate  the 
Maryland  idea,  against  the  policy  of  his  adopted  State,  Virginia).  Congress 
was  to  lay  off  the  boundaries  for  a  new  State ;  and,  "as  it  must  be  supposed, 
not  to  be  peopled  when  laid  off,"  the  central  government  was  also  to  supply 
the  new  political  unit  in  advance  with  a  constitution  "for  a  certain  term  of 
years  (perhaps  ten),  or  until  the  State  becomes  peopled  to  a  certain  number  of 
inhabitants ;  after  which  the  sole  right  of  modeling  their  government  to  rest 
with  themselves."  As  to  the  relation  of  the  new  State  to  the  Union, — "It 
ought  to  be  incorporated  into  the  Union,  on  the  ground  of  a  family  right, 
such  a  State  standing  in  the  line  of  a  younger  child  of  the  same  stock ;  but 
...  a  new  State  requiring  aid,  rather  than  [being]  capable  of  giving  it,  it  might 
be  most  convenient  to  admit  its  immediate  representative  into  Congress  to  sit, 
hear,  and  debate  .  .  .  but  not  to  vote  till  after  the  expiration  of  seven  years." 
Thus  once  more,  in  a  constitutional  crisis,  Paine's  fertile  brain  gave  forth  the 
path-breaking  thought.  His  paragraph  contains  the  essential  details  of  our 
later  legislation  for  Territories. 


NATIONAL  ORGANIZATION 


265 


266  THE   NORTHWEST 

in  width  from  north  to  south  ;  and  the  meridian  passing  through  the  Falls 
of  the  Ohio  was  to  divide  the  eastern  from  the  western  tier.1 

As  to  government,  three  stages  were  provided.  (1)  When  any  one  of 
the  districts  should  have  sufficient  population  (the  provision  lacking  in 
definiteness),  either  the  inhabitants  or  Congress  might  call  a  representa- 
tive convention  (to  be  elected  by  manhood  suffrage)  with  power  to  adopt 
the  constitution  of  any  one  of  the  original  thirteen  States ;  according 
to  the  constitution  so  chosen,  the  inhabitants  were  to  govern  themselves 
during  what  we  may  call  the  provisional  territorial  stage.  (2)  Whenever 
the  population  reached  twenty  thousand,  a  second  convention  was  to 
establish  a  "  permanent  constitution,"  and  the  "  Territory"  was  to  send 
a  delegate  to  Congress,  —  who,  however,  should  not  hold  a  vote  there. 
This  stage  may  be  called  the  regular  territorial  organization.  (3)  Full 
statehood,  within  the  Union,  was  to  be  granted  when  the  population 
equaled  that  of  the  smallest  of  the  older  States. 

As  in  all  our  later  organization  of  Territories,  certain  provisions  were 
to  be  made  a  matter  of  compact  between  the  new  State  and  the  United 
States,  not  alterable  therefore  in  future  by  the  State  alone.  Thus,  the 
State  was  forever  to  remain  part  of  the  United  States,  and  to  preserve  a 
republican  form  of  government ;  it  was  to  take  over  its  share  of  the  public 
debt,  and  not  to  tax  United  States  lands  within  its  borders,  nor  to  tax 
non-residents  more  heavily  than  its  own  citizens.  Strangely  enough,  this 
document  from  Jefferson's  hand  contained  no  real  bill  of  rights  (perhaps 
because  that  was  thought  a  matter  for  the  future  State  constitutions)  ; 
but  a  remarkable  attempt  was  made  in  it  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the 
western  territory  after  the  year  1800.  This  provision,  however,  received 
the  votes  of  only  six  States,  and  so  failed  of  adoption.2 


1  Counting  from  the  thirty-first  parallel  (our  southern  boundary)  to  the 
forty-fifth,  this  arrangement  would  give  fourteen  States  ;  and,  in  rather 
vague  fashion,  another  seems  to  have  been  designed  for  the  space  between 
the  western  boundary  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  first  tier  of  new  States.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  expected  to  extend 
to  the  second  tier,  —  in  which  case  there  would  have  been  only  twelve  or 
thirteen  States.  To  ten  of  them  the  original  plan  gave  peculiar  names,  — 
Michigania,  Mesopotamia,  Polypotamia,  Assenisipia,  etc.  (The  Ordinance 
expressly  provided  that  any  fragments  north  of  the  forty-fifth  parallel  should 
be  included  In  the  States  just  south  of  them.) 

2  Virginia  (spite  of  Jefferson)  and  South  Carolina  voted  No ;  North  Caro- 
lina was  "  divided  "  and  so  not  counted ;  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  Georgia 
were  absent.  Jefferson  stated  later  that,  but  for  the  sickness  of  a  delegate 
from  New  Jersey,  that  State  would  have  been  present  and  in  the  affirmative  ; 
so  that  the  proposition  "  failed  for  want  of  one  vote."    The  proposal  applied 


x< 


\f*'  THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE  267 

182.   The  Ordinance  of  1787  ("The  Northwest  Ordinance").— 

These  political  provisions  in  the  Ordinance  of  '84  were  liberal 
and  democratic ;  but  they  were  vague  in  places,  and  they  left 
to  the  central  government  no  convenient  means  of  control, 
even  in  the  earliest  stage  of  settlement.  In  1787,  the  law 
was  replaced  by  the  great  Northwest  Ordinance.  This  was  a 
slightly  more  conservative  law,  drawn  in  more  precise  terms, 
with  more  machinery  for  central  control  and  with  some  noble 
additional  features,  but  on  the  same  general  plan. 

During  the  three  years  which  had  passed  since  the  passage  of  the  first 
ordinance,  there  had  been  no  district  in  the  ceded  territory  populous 
enough  to  organize  under  the  law.  Indeed,  in  the  Northwest  there 
were  no  English-speaking  inhabitants.  Meantime,  some  parts  of  the 
East  had  begun  to  look  jealously  at  the  prospect  of  so  many  new  States, 
with  weight  in  Congress  to  outvote  the  Atlantic  section.  Moreover, 
Monroe,  after  a  hasty  trip  through  the  West,  reported  that  much  of  the 
territory  was  "miserably  poor,"  so  that  some  of  the  proposed  States 
would  never  contain  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants  to  entitle  them  to 
membership  in  the  confederacy.  Congress,  therefore,  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  prepare  a  new  plan  of  organization,  with  view  particularly  to 
reducing  the  number  of  future  States. 

In  1786  a  number  of  New  England  Revolutionary  soldiers  organized 
a  "company  of  associates,"  to  establish  themselves  in  new  homes  on  the 
Ohio.  Early  in  1787  this  Ohio  Company  sent  the  shrewd  Manasseh  Cutler 
(one  of  their  directors)  to  buy  a  large  tract  of  western  land  from  Con- 
gress. Cutler  found  the  proposed  Territorial  ordinance  under  discussion . 
Congress  was  slowly  dying  (§  188),  and  its  dilatory  habits  might  have  pre- 
vented any  new  legislation,  but  it  was  stirred  to  action  by  the  attractive 
prospect  of  paying  part  of  its  debts  with  wild  lands.  Negotiations  for 
the  land  deal  and  for  the  new  Territorial  law  (under  which  the  settlers 
would  have  to  place  themselves)  became  intermingled.  Cutler  proved 
an  adroit  lobbyist.  On  one  occasion  he  had  to  frighten  the  hesitating 
Congress  into  action  by  pretending  to  take  leave  ;  but  finally  both  meas- 
ures were  passed.  The  ordinance,  with  a  number  of  new  provisions 
satisfactory  to  the  New  Englanders,  became  law  on  July  13  ;  and  a  few 
days  later  the  land  sale  was  completed.1 

to  the  domain  south  of  the  Ohio,  as  well  as  to  that  north  of  the  river.  For 
the  Ordinance  as  adopted,  cf.  Source  Book,  §  149,  a. 

1  The  Ohio  Company  bought  for  itself  1,500,000  acres,  at  a  nominal  price  of 
two  thirds  of  a  dollar  an  acre.    Payment  was  made,  however,  in  depreciated 


268  THE  NORTHWEST 

The  "  Northwest  Ordinance  "  *  (so-called  because,  unlike  its 
predecessor,  it  applied  only  to. the  territory  north  of  the  Ohio) 
has  been  styled  second  in  importance  only  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  and  the  Constitution.  Under  it,  the  new 
type  of  American  colony  was  first  actually  established. 

Not  less  than  three,  nor  more  than  five  states  were  to  be 
formed  from  the  territory,  but,  until  further  Congressional 
action,  the  whole  district  was  to  be  one  unit.  As  in  the  older 
law,  three  stages  of  government  were  provided. 

(1)  Until  the  district  should  contain  five  thousand  free  male 
inhabitants,  there  was  no  self-government.  Congress 2  appointed 
a  "governor"  and  three  "judges."  The  governor  created  and 
filled  all  local  offices ;  and  governor  and  judges  together  com- 
posed a  sort  of  legislature  to  select  laws  suitable  for  Territorial 
needs  from  the  codes  of  older  states, — subject,  however,  to 
the  veto  of  Congress. 

(2)  In  the  second  stage  Congress  still  appointed  the  gov- 
ernor; but  there  was  now  to  be  a  two-House  legislature,  —  a 
House  of  Representatives  elected  by  the  people,  and  a  Legisla- 
tive Council  of  five  men  selected  by  Congress  from  ten  nomi- 


soldiers'  "  certificates  "  (§  189,  b),  so  that  the  real  cost  was  only  eight  or  nine 
cents.  Unhappily,  the  purchase  was  carried  through  by  connecting  it  with  a 
"job."  Influential  members  of  Congress,  as  the  price  of  their  support,  in- 
duced Cutler  to  take,  at  this  rate,  not  merely  the  million  and  a  half  acres 
which  he  wanted,  but  also  three  and  a  half  million  more,  which  were  after- 
ward privately  transferred  to  another  "company"  composed  of  these  con- 
gressmen and  their  friends.  The  matter  came  out ;  but,  in  that  day,  moral 
standards  for  public  life  did  not  condemn  such  use  of  a  position  of  public  trust 
as  severely  as  it  would  be  reprobated  to-day. 

1  Cf .  Source  Book,  No.  149,  b.  The  class  should  study  the  document  at  least 
far  enough  to  verify  the  statements  made  in  the  text  regarding  it.  The  prin- 
ciples of  this  law  became  so  fixed  during  the  next  century  that  students  are  in 
danger  of  thinking  of  the  Ordinance  as  no  more  open  to  change  than  the  Con- 
stitution. Of  course,  in  law,  it  was  an  ordinary  statute,  subject  at  any  time 
to  revision  or  abolition  by  Congress,  and  many  details  were  modified  or  added 
afterward,  even  for  Territories  in  the  Northwest. 

2  This  law  was  passed,  of  course,  by  the  Continental  Congress.  After  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  next  year,  many  powers  here  given  to  Con- 
gress were  transferred  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


THE  NORTHWEST  ORDINANCE  269 

nated  by  the  Territorial  lower  House.  This  legislature  was  to 
send  a  Territorial  delegate  to  Congress,  with  right  to  debate 
but  not  to  vote.  The  appointed  governor  had  an  absolute  veto 
upon  all  acts  of  the  legislature  and  controlled  its  sittings,  call- 
ing and  dissolving  sessions  at  will.  Thus,  in  this  stage,  the 
inhabitants  had  about  the  same  amount  of  self-government  as  in  a 
royal  province  before  the  Revolution}  Political  rights,  too,  were 
based  upon  a  graded  otvnership  of  land :  to  vote  for  a  Repre- 
sentative, one  must  have  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres  ;  to  be  eligi- 
ble for  the  lower  House,  two  hundred  acres ;  for  the  upper 
House,  five  hundred ;  and  for  the  governorship,  a  thousand. 

(3)  The  third  stage  was  provided  for  in  the  following  words  : 
"  Whenever  any  of  the  said  States  shall  have  sixty  thousand  2 
free  inhabitants,  such  State  shall  be  admitted,  by  its  delegates, 
into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  ivhatever,  and  shall  be 
at  liberty  to  form  a  permanent  constitution  and  State  govern- 
ment." 

A  true  "  bill  of  rights "  was  incorporated  in  the  most 
solemn  fashion  :  "  And,  for  extending  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  civil  and  religious  liberty  .  .  .  [and]  to  .  .  .  establish 
those  principles  as  the  basis  of  all  .  .  .  governments  which 
forever  hereafter  shall  be  formed  in  the  said  territory,"  six 
lengthy  articles  were  declared  to  be  "articles  of  compact  be- 
tween the  original  States  and  the  people  ...  in  the  said 
Territory  .  .  .  forever  [to]  remain  unalterable,  unless  by  com- 
mon consent."  To  similar  provisions  in  the  previous  ordi- 
nance there  was  now  added  the  right  of  individuals  to  free- 
dom of  religion,  to  habeas  corpus  privileges,  to  bail  (except 
upon  capital  charges),  to  exemption  from   cruel   or  unusual 


1  Cf .  especially  the  government  of  Massachusetts  under  her  second  charter. 

2  This  was  intended  to  have  the  same  effect  as  the  corresponding  require- 
ment in  the  Ordinance  of  '84.  Sixty  thousand  was  supposed  to  he  about  the 
population  of  the  smallest  States.  The  first  census,  three  years  later,  gave 
Delaware  fifty-nine  thousand  and  Rhode  Island  sixty-nine  thousand. 


270  THE  NORTHWEST 

punishments,  and  to  jury  trial.  Guarantees  were  given  for 
proportionate  representation,  for  the  Common  Law  procedure, 
for  the  inviolability  of  contracts,  and  for  the  equal  division 
of  estates  (even  of  landed  property)  among  the  heirs  of  in- 
testates.1 The  Third  Article  declared  that  "  schools  and  the 
means  of  education  shall  forever  be  encouraged, " ;  and  the  great 
Sixth  Article  prohibited  slavery,  with  a  provision,  however, 
for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  escaping  into  the  North- 
west from  other  States. 

The  Northwest  Ordinance  did  not  make  specific  provision  for  public 
support  of  education,  as  many  people  suppose.  That  was  done  by  two 
other  ordinances  of  the  Continental  Congress,  —  one  earlier,  one  just 
later,  —  which  made  smooth  the  way  for  western  settlement  and  pro- 
foundly influenced  its  character(  §  183). 

/-    . 
183.    Survey  Ordinance  (1785),  and  Land  Grants   to    "State 

Universities"  (1787).  —  In  1785,  Congress  had  passed  an  ordi- 
nance (originating  with  Jefferson)  (1)  providing  for  a  rectan- 
gular land  survey  by  the  government,  in  advance  of  settlement  ; 
(2)  establishing  land  offices  for  sale  of  public  lands  at  low 
prices  and  in  small  lots  ; 2  and  (  3  )  giving  one  thirty-sixth  of  the 
national  domain  (in  properly  distributed  tracts)  to  the  new 
States,  for  the  support  of  public  schools.  These  three  principles 
have  ever  since  remained  fundamental  in  Western  develop- 
ment. 

For  a  rectangular  survey,  it  was  necessary  first  to  fix  a  north-and-south 
and  an  east-and-west  line  ("  Prime  Meridian  "  and  "  Base  Line").  The 
ordinance  named  two  such  lines  ;  and  as  the  survey  proceeded,  others 

xIn  the  older  States,  primogeniture  was  still  the  rule,  or  had  been  so  until 
just  before.  Even  in  New  England,  the  oldest  son  still  inherited  a  double 
share.  The  principle  of  equal  division  of  landed  property  had  a  special  demo- 
cratic value,  because  of  the  connection  between  land  and  political  power. 

2  So  that  settlers  could  buy  directly  from  the  government.  Previously,  the 
public  domain  had  been  obtainable,  iu  practice,  only  in  immense  tracts,  and 
therefore,  in  the  first  instance,  only  by  wealthy  speculators.  This  law  made 
the  unit  for  land  sales  the  "  section  "  (640  acres).  This  proved  too  large,  and 
in  1800  it  was  reduced  to  160  acres.  In  1820  it  was  made  80,  and  later,  40 
acres. 


THE   SURVEY  ORDINANCE 


271 


were  located.     Diagram  A  indicates  those  actually  used  for  the  North- 
west Territory.     Oregon  lands  are  surveyed  from  the  Twenty-fourth 
Prime  Meridian,    < 
which    runs    through 
that  State. 

Beginning  at  the 
intersection  of  any 
Prime  Meridian  and 
Base,  the  surveyors 
run  out  perpendicu- 
lars to  each  line  at  six- 
mile  intervals.  The 
intersections  of  the 
two  sets  Of  lines  mark 
off  the  domain  into 
squares,1  called  town- 
ships, each  containing 
thirty-six  square 
miles.  The  first  row 
of  squares  west  of  the 
Prime  Meridian  is 
called  Bange  One ; 
the  second  row,  Range 
Two ;  etc.  Any  square 
in  the  row  just  north 

of  the  Base  is  called  Town  One ;  any  one  in  the  second  row,  Town  Two. 
Thus  to  name  both  Town  and  Range  is  to  locate  any  township  beyond 
dispute.2 

Each  township  is  subdivided  into  thirty-six  smaller  squares, 
called  sections,  each  one  mile  square,  numbered  from  one  to 
thirty-six,  beginning  in  the  northeast  corner  of  the  township 
(Diagram  C).  Subsequent  legislation  provided  for  more  minute 
divisions,  cutting  the  sections  into  halves  (320  acres),  quarters 


Unitp:d  States  Survey  :    Diagram  A.     Bases 
and  Meridians  for  the  Old  Northwest. 


1  The  north- and-south  lines  gradually  approach  one  another  toward  the  north ; 
and,  to  keep  the  "squares"  more  nearly  square,  it  is  necessary  at  frequent 
intervals  to  take  a  new  parallel  as  a  Correction  Line,  as  shown  in  Diagram  B. 

2  Exercise.— In  Diagram  B,  G  is  Town  Three  South,  Range  Four  West. 
To  reach  it  from  X,  one  must  go  south  twelve  miles,  and  west  eighteen. 
This  would  leave  one  at  the  northeast  corner.  Locate  H,  O,  and  other  town- 
ships. 


272 


THE  NORTHWEST 


(160  acres),  and  even  quarters  of  quarter  sections  ("forties"). 
Each  such  subdivision  is  indicated  by  its  geographical  location 
(Diagrams  C  and  D).1     Having  found  the  corner  of  a  section 


I 

1 

1 

1 

H 

" 

Correction 

\ 

Line 

1 

' 

r 

w 

2 

1 1 

2 

Base 

Line 

G 

.1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

Diagram  B.    Towns  and  Ranges. 

(as  above),  a  stranger  knows  just  how  many  rods  to  go,  and  in 
what  direction,  to  reach  the  Northwest  quarter  of  the  South- 
west quarter.  The  surveyors  mark  each  corner  of  each 
"section"  in  some  permanent  fashion;  and  the  court  house  for 
each  county  contains  a  map  of  the  survey  within  its  limits  and 
a  record  of  the  "  marks."  Location  of  land  and  settlement  be- 
came possible  without  the  costly  and  dubious  aid  of  private 
surveyors.2 


1  Exercise.  — Draw  D  with  other  distribution  of  subdivisions,  naming 
each  one.    Name  x  in  Diagram  D. 

2  Previous  to  this  law  of  1785,  surveys  in  America  had  been  irregular,  over- 
lapping one  another  in  places,  and  in  other  places  leaving  large  fractions  un- 
incorporated in  any  "description."    The  points  of  beginning,  too,  had  been 


THE   SURVEY  ORDINANCE 


273 


In  other  indirect  ways,  this  method  of  survey  has  affected  Western  life. 
County  Boards  run  roads  on  the  section  lines,  and,  when  necessary,  on 
the  geometric  subdividing  lines.  The  counties,  made  up  of  square  town- 
ships, take  on  a  more  rectangular  form,  as  compared  with  those  in  older 
States ;  and  the  more  Western  States  themselves  tend  to  a  similar  form. 
(Cf.  Map,  after  page  652.) 

An  attempt  to  insert  a  provision  in  the  Ordinance  of  1785  to 
set  aside  section  15  of  each  township  for  the  maintenance  of 


6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

18 

17 

1 

15 

14 

13 

16 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

30 

29 

28 

27 

26 

25 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

N  WrJ- 
N  W} 

X 

N  Ei 

SIN  W* 

Si 

Diagram  C.    A  Township  Subdivided  into         Diagram  D.    A  Section 
Sections.  Subdivided. 

religion  was  voted  down;  but  each  section  16  was  granted  to  the 
future  communities  for  the  support  of  common  schools.  This 
provision  preceded  the  vague  phrase  in  the  Ordinance  of  '87  re- 


arbitrarily  chosen,  and,  if  once  lost,  they  were  hard  to  determine  again.  At 
almost  the  date  of  this  ordinance,  the  records  of  Jefferson  County  in  Kentucky 
describe  the  land  of  Abraham  Lincoln's  grandfather  as  located  on  a  fork  of  the 
Long  Run,  beginning  about  two  miles  up  from  the  mouth  of  the  fork,  "  at  a 
Sugar  Tree  standing  in  the  side  of  the  same  marked  S  DB  and  extending  thence 
East  300  poles  to  a  Poplar  and  Sugar  Tree  North  213£  poles  to  a  Beech  and 
Dogwood  West  300  poles  to  a  White  Oak  and  Hickory  South  213^  poles  to  the 
Beginning."  The  older  portions  of  the  country  still  keep  these  cumbersome 
and  imperfect  descriptions. 


274  THE   NORTHWEST 

garding  encouragement  to  education  ;  and  it  ranks  in  importance 
with  the  exclusion  of  slavery  by  that  document. 

The  intention  was  to  have  each  township  use  the  proceeds  from  its  sec- 
tion 16  for  its  own  schools.  Happily,  it  was  soon  decided  to  give  the  sale 
of  school  lands  to  State  officials,  rather  than  to  local  officers,  and  to  turn 
all  proceeds  into  a  permanent  State  fund,  of  which  only  the  interest  is 
divided  each  year  among  various  localities  of  the  State,  usually  in  propor- 
tion to  their  school  attendance.  The  States  admitted  since  1842  have 
received  also  section  36  of  each  township  for  school  purposes,  or  one 
eighteenth  of  the  land  within  their  limits,  besides  lavish  grants  for  in- 
ternal improvements  (§§  312,  314). 

The  other  great  act  of  the  dying  Continental  Congress  which 
deserves  grateful  remembrance  was  passed  a  few  days  after  the 
Northwest  Ordinance.  Cutler  was  not  content  even  with  the 
generous  terms  he  had  secured  for  the  Ohio  Company  (§  182)  ;  and 
he  obtained  a  further  grant  of  forty-six  thousand  acres  "  of  good 
land  "  in  the  proposed  Territory  "  for  the  support  of  an  institu- 
tion of  higher  learning"  —  the  land  to  be  located,  and  funds 
used,  "  as  the  future  legislature  of  the  proposed  settlement  may 
direct."  Here  begins  the  policy  of  national  land  grants  to  "  State 
universities."  When  the  Territory  of  Indiana  was  set  off  on 
the  West,  a  like  grant  was  made  for  it ;  and  so  on,  for  each  new 
Territory  since.  After  1873,  such  grants  were  doubled  in 
amount/ 

\ 184.  Early  Settlement. — While  the  thirteen  States  were 
waging  a  hot  political  campaign  over  the  adoption  of  a  Federal 
Constitution  (§  210),  the  settlement  of  the  Northwest  began. 
The  Ohio  Company  pressed  its  preparations  eagerly,  and  adver- 
tised the  riches  of  the  West  extravagantly,  to  sell  its  lands ; 
and  in  the  winter  of  1787-1788,  fifty  New  Englanders  under 
General  Putnam  made  the  western  journey  as  far  as  Fort  Pitt 
(Pittsburg).  Here  they  built  a  huge  boat,  with  sides  protected 
by  bullet-proof  bulwarks,  naming  it  the  Mayflower  in  memory 
of  their  forefathers'  migration  to  a  new  world.  As  soon 
as  the  ice  broke  up,  they  floated  down  the  Ohio  to  the  mouth 
of  the   Muskingum,  and   there    founded    Marietta.     Various 


1 1*2 


EARLY  DEVELOPMENT 


275 


hamlets  soon  clustered  about  this  first  settlement,  —  each,  as  a 
rule,  centered  about  a  mill,1  —  and  within  two  years  the  colony 
contained  a  thousand  people.  Indeed,  ten  thousand  are  re- 
ported to  have  floated  past  Marietta  during  its  first  season, 
most  of  them  bound  for  Kentucky,  but  many  to  establish  them- 
selves at  different  points  in  the  Northwest. 

In  1799  the  second  stage  of  Territorial  government  began, 
with  a  representative  legislature.     The   next   year   Congress 


Campus  Martius,  Marietta,  1791. 

(As  reconstructed  in  The  American  Pioneer,  in  1841.) 

divided  the  district  into  two  "Territories,"  —  the  eastern  still 
going  by  the  old  name  of  the  Northwest  Territory ;  the  western 
receiving  the  name  Indiana.  In  1802,  the  eastern  district  was 
admitted  to  the  Union  as  the  State  of  Ohio. 

For  many  years,  migration  continued  to  be  by  wagon  to  Pittsburg  or 
Wheeling,  and  thence  by  water  on  hundred-foot  rafts  carrying  cattle  and 
small  houses,  or  on  somewhat  more  manageable  flatboats  seventy  feet 
long  perhaps.  Such  vehicles  were  steered  from  rocks  and  sand  bars  by 
long  "  sweeps.  "  They  floated  lazily  with  the  current  by  day,  and  tied  up 
at  the  bank  at  night.  Occasionally,  long  narrow  keel  boats  were  used  ; 
and  these  were  especially  convenient,  because,  by  the  brawny  arms  of 

1  Cf .  §  124  for  a  suggestion  as  to  the  like  importance  of  mills  in  early  New 
England. 


276  THE   NORTHWEST  t 

seven  or  eight  men,  they  could  be  poled  up  tributary  streams,  to  choice 
points  for  settlement. 

For  a  time,  settlement  was  hampered  by  frequent  Indian  forays.  The 
wars  that  followed,  however,  were  managed  by  the  Federal  government, 
and  the  most  important  forces  were  "regulars."  In  1790  and  1791,  ex- 
peditions against  the  Indians  were  repulsed  disastrously  —  the  second  cost- 
ing more  than  half  the  American  force.  But  in  1794  General  Wayne 
inflicted  a  crushing  defeat  upon  the  natives ;  and,  the  same  year,  a  new 
treaty  with  England  secured  to  the  United  States  actual  possession  of  the 
Northwest  posts  (§  231) .  This  deprived  the  Indians  of  all  hope  of  English 
support,i  and  they  ceased  to  molest  settlement  seriously  until  just  before 
the  War  of  1812. 


III.     SUMMARY 

185.  "'The  Meaning  of  the  West."  —  The  early  western  commu- 
nities, it  will  be  noted,  reproduced  the  simplicity  of  the  first  communities  on 
the  Atlantic  coast  a  century  and  a  half  before.  Like  the  early  Virginia 
Assembly  or  the  Massachusetts  General  Court,  the  governing  bodies  on 
the  Watauga  and  the  Cumberland  made  little  distinction  between  legisla- 
tive, judicial,  and  executive  functions.  One  organ  of  government  sufficed 
for  all  purposes.  Differentiation  came  later,  as  it  had  already  come  in 
the  East  with  the  complex  needs  of  denser  populations.  As  that  evo- 
lution in  the  new  communities  progressed,  its  course  was  determined 
largely  by  the  experience  of  the  older  communities;  and  at  the  same 
time  those  eastern  communities  felt  a  wholesome  reaction  from  the 
simplicity  and  democracy  of  the  West. 

But  the  western  societies  did  not  merely  copy  Eastern  development. 
They  did  not  begin  just  where  the  Atlantic  seaboard  settlements  did. 
They  started  on  a  different  plane  and  with  greater  momentum.     The  At- 

1  American  writers  used  to  assume  that  the  Indian  forays  were  directly 
fomented  by  the  English  officials  in  the  Northwest  posts.  No  doubt  the 
presence  of  English  troops  there  did  have  some  effect  upon  Indian  hopes. 
But  after  a  careful  examination  of  recently  opened  sources  of  informa- 
tion, Professor  Andrew  McLaughlin  writes:  —  " I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  state 
.  .  .  that  England  and  her  ministers  can  be  absolutely  acquitted  of  the  charge 
that  they  desired  to  foment  war  in  the  West.  .  .  .  There  was  never  a  time 
when  the  orders  of  the  home  government  did  not  explicitly  direct  that  war  was 
to  be  deprecated,  and  that  the  Indians  were  to  be  encouraged  to  keep  the 
peace."  —  Report  of  American  Historical  Association  for  1894,  435  ff. 


MEANING  OF   THE  WEST  277 

lantic  frontier  had  to  work  upon  European  germs.     Moving  westward, 
each  new  frontier  has  been  more  and  more  American,  at  the  start. 

These  considerations  give  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  frontier  in 
American  history  for  the  next  century  and  a  quarter  (until  there  ceased 
to  be  a  true  frontier) .  Says  Frederick  J.  Turner,  in  words  nobly  chosen  : 
"  The  pecAiliarity  of  American  institutions  is  that  they  have  been  com- 
pelled to  adapt  themselves  to  the  changes  of  an  expanding  people,  — to  the 
changes  involved  in  crossing  a  continent,  in  winning  a  wilderness,  and  in 
developing  at  each  new  area  of  this  progress  out  of  the  primitive  economic 
and  political  conditions  of  the  frontier  into  the  complexity  of  city  life." 
Other  countries  show  development,  continues  Dr.  Turner,  but  not  the  in- 
teraction of  so  many  planes  of  development.  Thus  in  the  colonial  period, 
"we  have  the  familiar  phenomenon  of  the  evolution  of  institutions  in 
a  limited  area :  such  as  representative  government ;  the  differentiation  of 
simple  governments  into  complex  organs  ;  the  progress  from  primitive  in- 
dustrial society,  without  division  of  labor,  up  to  manufacturing  civiliza- 
tion." But  we  have  also  (as  other  nations  have  not)  "  a  recurrence  of 
this  process  in  each  new  western  area  reached  in  the  process  of  expansion.  • 
.  .  .  American  social  development  has  been  continually  beginning  over 
again  on  the  frontier.  This  perennial  rebirth,  this  fluidity  of  American 
life,  this  expansion  westward  with  its  new  opportunities,  this  continuous 
touch  with  the  simplicity  of  primitive  society,  furnish  the  forces  dominat- 
ing American  character.  The  true  point  of  view  in  the  history  of  this 
nation  is  not  the  Atlantic  coast :  it  is  the  Great  West.  .  .  .  The  frontier 
is  the  line  of  most  rapid  and  effective  Americanization."  (American 
Historical  Association  Beport  for  1893. )l 

1  Dr.  Turner  is  the  first  true  interpreter  of  the  frontier  in  our  history. 
But  every  student  should  read  also  Woodrow  Wilson's  "  Course  of  Ameri- 
can History  "  in  his  volume  Mere  Literature,  and  Samuel  Crothers'  "  Land  of 
the  Large  and  Charitable  Air  "  in  The  Pardoner's  Wallet. 


\     V 


^ 


CHAPTER   VIII 

PROM    LEAGUE    TO    UNION 
I.     THE   CONFEDERATION   OF   STATES 

A.    The  Revolutionary  Governments,  1776-1781 

186.  Formation  of  the  "Articles." — Richard  Henry  Lee's  motion 
for  Independence  on  June  7,  1776  (§  150),  contained  also  a  resolution 
that  a  "plan  of  confederation"  be  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  States. 
A  committee  was  appointed  at  once  to  draw  up  a  plan.  Not  till  Novem- 
ber, 1777,  however,  did  Congress  adopt  the  "  Articles  of  Confederation  "  ; 
and  ratification  by  the  States  was  not  secured  until  1781  (§  179),  when 
the  war  was  virtually  over. 

187.  The  States  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  —  During 
the  five  years  from  1776  to  1781,  the  central  Congress  rested 
such  authority  as  it  had  upon  revolutionary  necessities  and 
upon  the  informal  and  undefined  acquiescence  of  the  State  gov- 
ernments. Men  did  not  clearly  determine  for  themselves  in  those 
troubled  days  whether  the  States  were  one  nation  or  thirteen. 
Certainly,  no  one  at  the  time  thought  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence binding  upon  any  State  merely  because  of  the  action 
at  Philadelphia,  but,  mainly  if  not  wholly,  because  of  the 
instructions  or  ratification  by  the  State  itself  (§  150).  In  this 
matter  Congress  did  not  even  advise  the  States.  It  waited  for 
the  States  to  instruct  their  respective  delegations.  Then  the 
vote  was  taken  by  States,  and  the  delegates  of  no  State  *  voted 
for  the  Declaration  until  expressly  authorized  by  their  own 
State  Assembly.  The  action  at  Philadelphia  amounted  to  a 
joint  announcement,  in  order,  in  Franklin's  phrase,  that  they 
might  all  "hang  together,"  so  as  not  to  "hang  separately." 

1  Unless  South  Carolina  is  possibly  an  exception.    Cf.  §  150. 

278 


THE   STATES  AND   INDEPENDENCE  279 

True,  the  final  paragraph  of  the  Declaration  has  a  reference 
to  "  the  authority  of  the  good  people  of  these  colonies  " ;  and, 
in  later  times,  that  one  phrase  has  been  tortured  into  proof 
that  the  Declaration  was  the  act  of  a  consolidated  people,  —  a 
single  nation.  Such  reasoning  ignores  the  fact  that  three 
longer  phrases  in  the  same  paragraph  teach  more  emphatically 
the  opposite  doctrine,  —  of  thirteen  peoples;  and  that  the 
signed  copy  was  headed  "  The  unanimous  Declaration  of  the 
thirteen  United  States." 

It  would  be  unwise,  however,  to  draw  positive  conclusions  from  the 
wording  of  the  document,  alone,  even  were  that  wording  in  agreement 
throughout.  The  men  of  '76  had  not  yet  learned,  many  of  them,  to  use 
the  common  terms  of  political  science,  —  such  as  independence,  sovereign, 
state,  nation,  —  with  the  nice  precision  that  belongs  to  later  days.  More- 
over, they  were  thinking  mainly  of  the  relations  of  the  States  to  Eng- 
land, not  to  each  other  or  to  Congress.  These  questions  arose  later,  and 
cannot  be  answered  from  the  language  of  the  earlier  day,  except  as  that 
language  agrees  with  action. 

Exercise.  —  The  following  questions  are  suggestive.  Keep  them,  and 
the  comment,  in  mind,  as  the  study  progresses,  without  answering  them 
too  definitely.     Some  material  may  be  found  in  the  Source  Book. 

a.  In  1776  was  "United  States"  a  singular  noun?  Was  it  even  a 
collective,  in  all  cases  ?  Was  "  united,"  or  even  "  United,"  always  a  part 
of  the  noun,  or  was  it  sometimes  merely  a  descriptive  adjective?  (See 
note  below  for  one  example.)  Do  you  find  the  term  "  United  States"  in 
that  period  ever  taking  a  singular  verb  or  pronoun  ? 

b.  Would  any  one  in  Maryland,  or  out  of  it,  have  thought  that  State 
independent  on  July  4,  1776,  if  she  had  not  previously  rescinded  her 
instructions  against  independence  ?  (Cf.  §  150.)  The  same  question  for 
New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.  Did  men  think  New  York  bound  by  that 
day's  act  ? 1    Did  Virginians  think  their  independence  due  to  the  vote  at 

1  Even  Hamilton  wrote,  in  1784:  "By  the  Declaration  of  Independence  of 
July  4,  1776,  acceded  to  by  our  Convention  on  the  ninth,  the  late  colony  of 
New  York  became  an  independent  State:'  (Works,  Lodge  ed.,  Ill,  470.) 
And  it  was  John  Jay  who,  in  the  Third  New  York  Provincial  Congress, 
moved  the  resolution  of  June  11,  1776  (§150),  "That  the  good  people  of 
this  colony  have  not,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Congress,  authorized  this  Congress 
or  the  delegates  of  this  colony  in  the  Continental  Congress,  to  declare  this 


280  THE   CONFEDERATION 

Philadelphia,  or  to  their  own  instructions  to  their  delegates  on  May  15, 
and  to  their  State  declaration  of  June  29  ?     (Cf.  §  148.) 

c.  June  3,  1776,  John  Adams  wrote  to  Patrick  Henry  :  "It  has  ever 
appeared  to  me  that  the  natural  order  of  things  was  this  :  for  every  colony 
to  institute  a  government  ;  for  all  the  colonies  to  confederate,  and  define 
the  limits- of  the  continental  constitution  ;  then  to  declare  the  colonies  a 
sovereign  State,  or  a  number  of  confederated  sovereign  States  .  .  .  But  I 
fear  we  cannot  proceed  systematically,  and  that  we  shall  be  obliged  to 
declare  ourselves  independent  states  before  we  confederate  ..."  Would 
not  Adams  have  said  on  July  4  (four  weeks  later),  that  this  last  antici- 
pation had  been  realized?  Would  he  have  thought  the  States  (in  his 
language  above)  "an  independent  state,"  or  " a  number  of  confederated 
states,"  or  merely  a  number  of  states  not  yet  confederated  ? 1 

In  the  middle  third  of  the  nineteenth  century  there  dawned 
a  great  struggle,  finally  to  be  settled  by  the  sword,  between 
union  and  disunion.  Unfortunately  for  historical  truth,  the 
progressive  side,  standing  on  what  had  come  to  be  true  in  our 
national  life,  tried  to  date  back  that  truth  further  than  it  really 
belonged,  in  their  desire  to  claim  for  it  all  possible  sanction 
of  age.  The  splendid  names  of  Story  and  Lincoln  became 
connected  with  the  dubious  historical  doctrine  that  the  Union 


colony  to  be  and  continue  independent  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain."  Did 
Jay  think  that  the  Continental  Congress  spoke  for  New  York  on  July  4  ?  The 
opinion  of  the  Pennsylvania  Convention  of  the  time  appears  in  their  resolu- 
tion approving  the  " cogent  reasons"  given  "by  the  honorable  Continental 
Congress  for  declaring  .this,  as  well  as  the  other  United  States  of  America  free 
and  independent,"  and  asserting  that  "  we  will  .  .  .  maintain  the  freedom 
and  independency  of  this  and  the  other  United  States."  (Is  "United"  in 
that  last  phrase  part  of  a  noun,  or  is  it  merely  an  adjective?)  So,  too,  Con- 
necticut (October,  1776),  when  adopting  her  old  charter  for  a  constitution, 
declared,  "This  Republic  (viz.,  Connecticut)  is  ...  a  free,  sovereign,  and 
independent  State." 

1  Another  indication  for  the  answer  to  the  last  question  is  found  in  a  sen- 
tence by  Adams  several  months  later  still,  in  the  debates  upon  the  proposed 
Articles  of  Confederation:  "The  confederacy  is  to  make  us  one  individual 
only;  it  is  to  fuse  us,  like  separate  parcels  of  metal,  into  one  common  mass." 
(Source  Book,  No.  146,  and  comment.) 

Adams,  Hamilton,  and  Jay  have  been  specially  quoted  in  the  passages 
above,  because  they  were  all  strong  advocates  of  national  union,  and  because 
they  used  words  with  more  than  average  precision  for  their  day. 


THE  STATES  AND  THE   UNION  281 

was  older  than  the  States  and  that  it  created  the  States.1 
Indeed,  to  the  thought  of  most  of  our  people,  this  error  became 
identified  with  patriotism,  and  for  two  generations  it  was 
taught  in  text-books  and  many-volumed  histories.  The  real 
basis  for  the  position  of  those  patriots,  it  is  easy  to  see  now,  lay 
not  in  any  theory  about  the  past,  but  in  the  throbbing  life  of 
their  own  day,  — in  the  need  and  the  will  of  a  living  people. 

Now  that  the  terrible  practical  danger  of  disunion  has 
passed,  men  can  look  more  calmly  at  the  theories.  In  this  new 
generation,  critical  scholars  reject  the  patriotic  fiction  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  Union  in  its  extreme  form.  And  here  is  great 
gain  for  the  truth  of  history.  We  not  only  cease  to  misread 
the  years  just  before  1776,  but  we  are  also  able  better  to  see  the 
real  significance  of  many  years  that  followed, — with  their 
groivth  toward  nationality. 

Still,  we  must  not  be  too  dogmatic  as  to  which  created  the 
other,  —  States  or  Union.  That  delicate  question  is  not  to  be 
answered  in  a  word.  States  and  Union  grew  up  together.  The 
States  grew  into  form  fastest  and  first ;  but,  from  the  begin- 
ning, there  was  a  general  expectation  that  they  would  be  com- 
bined in  some  sort  of  union.  Without  union,  indeed,  they 
could  not  have  lasted  long.  The  Union  did  not  formally  create 
the  States  ;  but  it  did  preserve  them.  The  Declaration  of  July  4 
was  the  act  of  States,  through  duly  accredited  agents.  Im- 
mediately afterward,  there  was  probably  nothing  but  common 
sense  to  prevent  any  State  from  acting  as  a  fully  independent 
nation.2     Some  of  them  did  so  act,  even  in  foreign  relations. 


1  Reformers  of  the  English-speaking  race  have  ever  tried  to  persuade  them- 
selves that  they  were  only  trying  to  get  hack  to  the  "good  old  days  of  King 
Edward."  Progress,  with  us,  tries  to  cloak  itself  in  some  legal  fiction  to 
the  effect  that  it  is  not  innovation,  but  merely  restoration.  The  student  of 
English  history  will  be  familiar  with  many  illustrations. 

2  Twenty  years  later,  in  1796,  this  extreme  view  was  asserted  by  Justice 
Chase  in  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States :  "  I  regard  this 
[the  Declaration  of  July  4,  1770]  a  declaration  not  that  the  united  colonies  in 
a  collective  capacity  were  independent  States,  but  that  each  of  them  was  a 
sovereign  and  independent  State."     (3  Dallas,  224.) 


282  THE   CONFEDERATION 

Virginia  negotiated  with  Spain  about  the  protection  of  their 
common  trading  interests  in  the  West;  and  she  even  thought  it 
necessary  that  her  legislature  should  confirm  the  treaty  made  by 
Congress  with  France  in  1778.  But,  on  the  whole,  with  great 
good  sense,  the  States  allowed  any  such  possible  independence'  to 
lapse  by  disuse.  As  a  rule,  Congress  exercised  supreme  power 
in  foreign  relations,  managing  the  war  and  sending  ministers 
to  European  powers  ;  and  this  practice  was  soon  made  the  con- 
stitutional theory  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 

For  Further  Reading. —  Many  discussions  of  this  topic    are    made' 
obscure  by  metaphysical  doctrines  of  sovereignty.     There  is  an  admirably 
clear  statement  in  Van  Tyne's  American  Revolution,  175-202. 

B.   Under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  1781-1789 

{The  "League  of  Friendship.'1'1') 

188.  Evils  Intensified.  —  The  adoption  of  the  Articles,  in 
1781,  merely  gave  formal  sanction  to  the  authority  Congress 
had  been  trying  to  exercise  without  a  constitution.  In  prac- 
tice, that  authority  was  less  after  1781  than  before.  The  war 
was  really  over,  and  the  States  no  longer  felt  it  necessary  to 
regard  the  claims  of  Congress.  More  and  more,  the  feeling  for 
nationality  was  lost  in  a  narrow  State  patriotism.  In  the  gen- 
erous glow  of  the  first  years  of  revolution,  Patrick  Henry  had 
once  exclaimed:  "I  am  no  longer  a  Virginian  :  I  am  an  Ameri- 
can." But  now  the  language  of  State  sovereignty  had  become 
almost  universal ;  and  in  the  Virginia  Assembly,  Richard  Henry 
Lee  spoke  of  Congress  as  "a  foreign  power." 

Such  language  threatened  to  end  in  action  that  would  dis- 
solve the  faint  union  which  still  lived.  Even  in  internal  af- 
fairs Congress  had  never  held  real  power  (§  160),  and  now  its 
weakness  became  notorious  and  shameful.  In  1785  and  1786, 
for  more  than  half  its  sessions,  not  enough  members  to  do 
business  could  be  got  together.1     Men  of  ability  and  ambition 

1  The  treaty  of  1783  had  to  be  ratified  within  six  months  of  its  signing  at 
Paris  ;  but  three  months  expired  before  the  necessary  nine  States  were  repre- 


^ 


WEAKNESS  OF  CONGRESS  283 

deserted  it  for  more  influential  positions  in  the  State  legisla- 
tures. Worse  still,  the  new-born  States  themselves  were 
drifting  rapidly  toward  not  merely  disunion,  but  internal 
anarchy. 

The  manifold  evils  of  the  critical  years  1 783-1 788  may  be  classified 
under  three  heads  :  (1)  the  weakness  of  the  Central  government ;  (2) 
conflicts  between  the  States;  and  (3)  anarchy  within  individual  States. 
(§§  189-192.) 

<G>  189.  The  weakness  of  Congress  was  manifested  most  con- 
spicuously in  (1)  inability  to  negotiate  with  foreign  powers 
to  advantage,  and  (2)  inability  to  raise  funds  for  the  bare 
necessities  of  government  at  home. 

a.  Congress  had  proven  unable  to  compel  the  States  to 
respect  even  the  treaty  of  peace  with  England  (§  162  close). 
When  we  wished  to  negotiate  a  further  commercial  treaty,  the 
irritated  English  ministry  asked  whether  they  were  to  deal 
with  one  State  or  with  thirteen ;  and  other  countries  cared 
little  to  spend  effort  on  negotiations  that  promised  to  be  waste 
paper. 

b.  Congress  was  bankrupt.  Eor  a  time  it  paid  interest 
on  the  $6,000,000  it  had  borrowed  from  France,  but  only  by 
borrowing  $2,000,000  more  from  Holland ;  and  there  came  a 
period  when  it  was  impossible  for  Yankee  ingenuity  to  wheedle 
more  money  from  friendly  Frenchman  or  Dutchman.  At 
home,  Congress  had  made  no  pretense  of  paying  even  interest. 
The  $240,000,000  of  paper  currency  was  practically  repudi- 
ated; and  interest-bearing  "  certificates  "  issued  by  Congress  to 
pay  off  the  army  (§  161)  passed,  by  1788,  at  twelve  cents  on  the 
dollar.  Congress  could  get  money  only  by  calling  upon  the 
States  for  contributions.     In  1781,  while  the  war  was  still  in 

sented  in  Congress.  Twenty  delegates,  representing  seven  States,  were  pres- 
ent when  Washington  resigned  command  of  the  army.  Rarely  afterward  were 
eleven  States  represented  ;  and  more  often  three  men  (of  the  twenty  or  twenty- 
five  present)  could  defeat  any  important  measure,  —  requiring,  as  such  meas- 
ures did,  the  assent  of  nine  States  (§  193) . 


284  THE   CONFEDERATION 

progress,  Congress  called  for  $5,000,000.  Less  than  a  tenth 
was  paid.  Some  States  ignored  the  call,  and  New  Jersey- 
answered  it  defiantly.  During  the  six  years  1783-1788 
(after  the  war),  Congress  made  requisitions  amounting  to 
$6,000,000 ;  but  less  than  $1,000,000  was  ever  paid,  —  not 
enough  to  care  for  the  interest  on  the  continental  debt. 

This  shame  cannot  be  excused  on  any  plea  of  poverty.  The  war  had 
demoralized  industry,  and  the  first  of  our  periodic  financial  panics  seems 
to  have  come  on  in  the  later  eighties ;  but  after  all,  the  main  difficulty 
was  the  desire  of  each  State  to  shift  its  burden  upon  a  neighbor,  or  its 
fear  that  it  itself  was  being  so  served.  Says  Francis  A.  Walker  {Making 
of  the  Nation,  9)  :  — 

"  Our  fathers  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution  were  not  an  impoverished 
people.  They  were  able  to  give  all  that  was  demanded  of  them.  It  chiefly 
was  a  bad  political  mechanism  which  set  every  man  and  every  State  to 
evading  obligations.  .  .  .  Under  a  thoroughly  false  system,  such  as  this 
was,  it  is  amazing  how  much  meanness  and  selfishness  will  come  out.^  1 

And  says  Professor  McLaughlin :  ' '  The  fact  is,  however,  that  the 
people  were  not  in  destitution.  There  is  abundance  of  contemporary  evi- 
dence to  show  that  at  the  end  of  the  Eevolution  the  people  were  living 
with  more  ease  and  circumstance  than  before  the  war.  .  .  .  The  trouble 
was  not  poverty,  but  commercial  confusion,  vicious  politics,  and  a  native 
disinclination  to  pay  taxes"  (Confederation  and  Constitution,  69,  70). 

190.  Strife  between  the  States.  —  A  wise  provision  of  the 
Articles  tried  to  establish  Congress  as  the  arbiter  in  dis- 
putes between  the  States ;  bu'j  bitter  jealousies  made  this  pro- 
vision a  dead  letter.  Inconceivable  rivalries  animated  the 
closest  neighbors.  Each  State  had  its  line  of  custom  houses 
against  all  the  others,  with  all  sorts  of  varying  discriminations, 
fruitful  of  discord.     Connecticut  taxed  goods  from  Massachu- 

1  The  correctness  of  this  judgment  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  with  a  change 
of  political  machinery  these  evils  vanished  as  by  magic.  Men  sometimes 
oppose  reform  in  political  machinery  by  saying  that  machinery  is  of  no  con- 
sequence :  that  what  we  need  is  better  men.  This  is  silly,  because  it  is  the 
business  of  government  to  make  it  easier  for  the  better  qualities  of  men  to 
come  out,  and  harder  for  the  meanness  and  selfishness.  The  change  in 
American  society  that  followed  the  exchange  of  the  Articles  for  the  Constitu- 
tion is  a  splendid  object  lesson  in  the  value  of  political  machinery. 


df  (UlAJyQs      STATE  ANARCHY  285 

i  pM  JjuUikjia^  h^Xxui  (n,^ts^Za, 

etts  inoreQthan  the  same\  articles  from  England,  —  in  hope 
of  drawing  away  British  trade  from  the  older  colony ;  and,  on 
another  frontier,  she  waged  a  small  war  with  Pennsylvania 
over  the  ownership  of  the  Wyoming  valley  (§  180),  while  she 
seemed  on  the  verge  of  war,  for  similar  territorial  reasons,  with 
New  York  and  New  Hampshire.  New  York  taxed  ruinously 
the  garden  produce  of  the  New  Jersey  farmers,  who  supplied 
her  and  who  had  no  other  market ;  and  New  Jersey  retaliated 
with  a  confiscatory  tax  of  a  thousand  dollars  upon  a  spot  of 
sandy  coast  which  New  York  had  bought  from  her  for  the  site 
of  a  lighthouse.  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  coming 
to  blows  over  the  navigation  of  the  Savannah.  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Vermont,  and  Maine  were  all  demanding  independ- 
ence of  the  older  States  of  which  they  were  still  legally  a  part. 
In  all  ages  the  two  fruitful  causes  of  war  between  neighboring 
nations  have  been  disputes  over  trade  and  over  boundaries ; 
and  just  such  disputes  were  now  threatening  to  turn  the 
Atlantic  coast  into  a  stage  for  petty  bloody  wars. 

191.  Anarchy  inside  the  States.  —  The  long  struggle  against 
England's  -control  over  the  colonies  led  even  some  intelligent 
patriots,  like  Samuel  Adams  and  Eichard  Henry  Lee,  to  object 
to  any  real  control  by  Congress  over  the  new  States.  It  is 
not  strange,  therefore,  that  more  ignorant  men  should  have 
fallen  into  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  any  government,  Central 
or  State.  They  had  for  years,  even  before  open  war,  associated 
service  of  liberty  with-  anti-social  acts,  —  boycotts,  breaking  up 
courts,  terrorizing  officers  of  the  law.  And,  having  won  easy 
reputation  as  patriots  by  refusing  to  pay  honest  debts  due  in 
England,  they  now  felt  it  a  hardship  to  pay  debts  to  their 
neighbors.  Demagogues  openly  declaimed,  to  applauding 
crowds,  that  all  debts  ought  to  be  wiped  out.  (Source  Book, 
No.  151,  b,  (2).)  Large  portions  of  society  had  been  slow  in 
settling  down  to  regular  industry.  Wild  theories  as  to  com- 
mon ownership  of  property  were  in  the  air. 

A  rude  awakening  all  this  proved  to  the  patriots  who  had 
expected  a  golden   age.     "  Good  God !  "  exclaimed  Washing- 


286  THE   CONFEDERATION 

ton,  of  such  disorders ;  "  Who  but  a  Tory  could  have  foreseen, 
or  a  Briton  predicted,  them  ?  "  And  again,  in  momentary 
despair,  he  declared  that  such  commotions  "  exhibit  a  melan- 
choly proof  .  .  .  that  mankind,  when  left  to  themselves,  are  un- 
fit for  their  own  government."  {Source  Book,  No.  151,  b.)  The 
worst  of  it  was,  too,  that  these  semi-criminal  forces  of  lawless- 
ness and  confiscation  were  made  formidable  because  reinforced 
by  the  bitter  discontent  of  multitudes  of  well-meaning  men, 
not  very  clear-headed  perhaps,  who  were  suffering  real  hard- 
ships in  the  readjustments  of  the  times.  Many  an  old  soldier 
who  had  lost  his  home  by  mortgage  foreclosure,  or  who  was  in 
danger  of  doing  so,  felt  that  the  loss  was  due  to  his  having 
received  insufficient  pay  in  worthless  paper  money ;  while  the 
law  of  the  time  drained  his  slender  resources  by  extortionate 
court  fees,  and  threatened  Jbo  condemn  him  to  hopeless  impris- 
onment for  such  undeserved  debt.1 

The  most  widespread  manifestation  of  this  wild  spirit  was  the 
fiat  money  craze  that  swept  over  half  the  States  and  threatened  all 
the  others,  despite  the  recent  grievous  experience  with  such  currency. 
In  New  Hampshire  an  armed  mob  besieged  the  legislature  for  such 
relief.2 

Rhode  Island  furnished  at  once  the  worst  extravagance  and  a  sugges- 
tion of  a  remedy.  Paper  money  was  the  issue  in  the  election  of  the 
legislature  in  1785.  The  "cheap  money"  party  won.  Creditors  fled, 
to  escape  accepting  the  new  "legal  tender"  for  old  loans  of  good 
money  ;  but  a  law  provided  that  in  such  case  the  debtor  might  secure 
a  discharge  of  his  debt  by  paying  into  court  the  face  value  in  paper. 
Merchants  closed  their  shops  rather  than  sell  goods  for  the  worthless 
stuff  ;  then  it  was  made  a  penal  offense,  punishable  without  jury  trial,  to 
refuse  the  paper  in  trade.     Finally  a  certain  Weeden,  a  butcher,  who 


1  Cf .  Source  Book,  No.  151,  a,  for  a  statement  of  grievances. 

2  All  this  has  no  application  to  an  issue  of  paper  money  properly  secured 
upon  some  adequate  real  value  for  which  it  can  be  exchanged ;  hut  most  of 
the  money  of  the  period  we  are  considering  lacked  this  character  altogether. 
Moreover,  the  paper  money  of  the  Revolution,  however  had  economically,  had 
been  a  political  necessity.  But  now,  when  no  such  necessity  existed,  the  man 
who  lacked  funds  clamored  to  have  the  State  make  him  rich  by  running  white 
paper  through  a  printing  press. 


SHAYS'   REBELLION  287 

had  refused  to  sell  meat  for  paper  to  one  Trevett,  was  brought  to  trial 
(1786).  Weeden's  lawyer  pleaded  that  the  law,  refusing  jury  trial,  was 
in  conflict  with  the  "  constitution"  1  and  was  therefore  void.  The  court 
took  this  view  and  dismissed  the  case.  The  legislature  summoned  the 
judges  to  defend  themselves  ;  and,  after  hearing  their  defense,  voted  that 
it  was  unsatisfactory.  At  the  next  election,  three  of  the  four  judges 
were  defeated  ;  but  their  action  had  helped  to  lay  the  foundation  for  the 
tremendous  power  of  the  later  American  courts. 

192.  Shays'  Rebellion.  —  Most  important  of  all  these  anarchic  move- 
ments was  Shays'1  Bebellion  in  Massachusetts.  For  six  months  in  1786- 
1787,  parts  of  the  State  were  in  armed  insurrection  against  the  regular 
State  government.  The  courts  in  three  large  districts  were  broken  up,  to 
stop  proceedings  against  debtors.  And  Daniel  Shays,  a  Revolutionary 
captain,  with  nearly  two  thousand  men,  was  barely  repulsed  from  the 
Federal  arsenal  at  Springfield.  Says  Francis  A.  Walker,  "The  insur- 
gents were*  largely,  at  least  in  the  first  instance,  sober,  decent,  industrious 
men,  wrought  to  madness  by  what  they  deemed  their  wrongs ;  but  they 
were,  of  course,  joined  by  the  idle,  the  djssipated,  the  discontented,  the 
destructive  classes,  as  the  insurrection  grew."2  Congress  prepared  to 
raise  troops  to  aid  Massachusetts,  but,  fearing  to  avow  that  purpose,  pre- 
tended to  be  preparing  for  an  Indian  outbreak.  In  any  case,  Congress 
was  too  slow  to  help.  The  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  too,  proved 
timid  and  inefficient.  But  Governor  Bowdoin,  left  to  his  own  resources, 
acted  with  courageous  decision.  The  State  militia  were  called  out  (sup- 
ported by  free-will  contributions  from  wealthy  merchants  of  Boston), 
and  the  rebels  were  dispersed  in  a  sharp  midwinter  campaign.  A  few 
months  later,  however,  Bowdoin  was  defeated  for  reelection  by  John  Han- 
cock, who  posed  as  a  popular  sympathizer  ;  and  Shays  and  other  rebel 
leaders  were  pardoned. 

This  rebellion  is  one  of  the  chief  events  leading  to  the 
new  Federal  Constitution.  Men  could  look  calmly  at  Rhode 
Island  vagaries,  and  even  at  New  Hampshire  anarchy;  but 
riot  and  rebellion  in  the  staid,  conservative,  powerful  Bay 
State  was  another  matter.  It  seemed  to  prelude  the  dissolu- 
tion  of   all  society,   unless   there   could   be    formed   at   once 


1  "  Constitution  "  was  used  here,  as  by  Otis  in  1761,  in  the  English  sense, 
since  the  Rhode  Island  Charter  made  no  specific  reference  to  trial  by  jury. 
This  makes  the  decision  the  more  daring  and  remarkable. 

2  Making  of  the  Nation,  17. 


288  THE   CONFEDERATION 

a  central  government  strong  enough,  "to  ensure  domestic 
tranquillity."  When  Henry  Lee  in  Congress  spoke  of  using 
influence  to  abate  the  Rebellion,  Washington  wrote  him  in 
sharp  rebuke,  "  You  talk,  my  good  Sir,  of  using  influ- 
ence. .  .  .  Influence  is  no  government.  Let  us  have  one  [a 
government]  by  which  our  lives,  liberties,  and  properties  may 
be  secured,  or  let  us  know  the  worst." 

At  the  same  time,  this  reaction  against  the  earlier  fervor  of  Rev- 
olutionary days  gave  to  the  Constitutional  Convention,  which  met 
a  few  months  later,  an  unfortunately  undemocratic  bias  (§  200). 

C.   The  Evils  axd  the  Articles 

193.  The  Confederation  called  itself  a  "  firm  league  of  friend- 
ship," but  avowedly  it  fell  far  short  of  a  national  union. 
The  central  authority  was.  vested  in  a  Congress  of  delegates 
(not  less  than  two  nor  more  than  seven  from  each  State). 
These  delegates  were  appointed  annually  by  the  State  legisla- 
tures; and  they  were  subject  to  recall  by  those  legislatures, 
and  were  paid  by  them.  Each  State  had  one  vote  in  Con- 
gress,1 and  nine  States  had  to  agree  for  important  measures. 
Each  State  promised  to  the  citizens  of  the  other  States  all  the 
privileges  enjoyed  by  its  own  citizens  (the  greatest  step  toward 
real  unity  in  the  Articles) ;  and  the  States  were  forbidden 
to  enter  into  any  treaty  with  foreign  powers  or  with  each 
other,  or  to  make  any  law  or  impose  any  tariff  that  should 
contravene  any  treaty  made  by  Congress  with  a  foreign  power. 
Congress  was  to  have  sole  control  over  all  foreign  relations, 
including  the  making  of  war  and  peace,  and  the  regulation  of 
Indian  affairs ;  and,  for  internal  matters,  it  was  to  manage  the 
postal  service  and  regulate  weights  and  measures  and  the 
coinage. 

The  final  article  read:  "Every  State  shall  abide  by  the  determina- 
tion of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled,  on  all  questions  which 

i  For  this  rule  in  1774,  cf.  Source  Book,  No.  130,  a.  For  the  contest  over 
the  matter  in  forming  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  cf.  ib.,  No.  146. 


THE   "ARTICLES"  289 

by  this  Confederation  are  submitted  to  them.  And  the  Articles  of 
this  Confederation  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  State,  and 
the  Union  shall  be  perpetual.  .  .  ."  But  a  previous  article  provided, 
"Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and 
every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right  which  is  not  by  this  Confederation 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled." 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  have  been  reviled  with  much 
contempt,  mostly  unmerited.  The  evils  we  have  discussed  did 
flow  mainly  from  the  nature  of  that  constitution ;  but  not  be- 
cause the  document  was  crude  or  clumsy  of  its  kind.  Probably 
it  was  the  best  constitution  for  a  confederacy  of  states  that 
the  world  had  ever  seen.  Certainly  it  had  many  improvements 
over  the  ancient  Greek  confederations,  and  over  the  Swiss  and 
Dutch  unions  of  that  day.  The  real  trouble  was,  no  mere  con- 
federacy could  answer  the  needs  of  the  new  American  people.  That 
people  needed  a  national  government,  such  as  a  confederation 
did  not  pretend  to  supply. 

The  inadequacies  of  the  Articles  may  be  treated  conveniently  under 
four  heads  :  (1)  poor  machinery  of  government ;  (2)  insufficient  enumera- 
tion of  powers  ;  (3)  impossibility  of  amendment ;  and  (4)  provision  for 
action  only  upon  States,  not  upon  individual  citizens  (§§  171-174). 

:"*  194.  Machinery.  —  Three  considerations  call  for  mention  un- 
Xc-  der  this  head :  (1)  The  requirement  that  nine  States  in  Congress 
must  agree  for  important  business  hindered  action  unduly, 
especially  when  for  long  periods  not  more  than  nine  or  ten 
States  were  represented.  (2)  The  Achaean  League  and  the 
contemporary  Dutch  Confederacy  each  had  a  true  executive ; 
but  the  American  union  had  none.  (3)  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Confederation  had  a  more  promising  beginning  for  a  federal 
judiciary,  faint  as  the  germ  was,  than  any  preceding  federa- 
tion had  known. 

195.  Enumeration  of  Powers.  —  No  federal  government  had 
ever  had  a  longer  list  of  important  matters  committed  to  its 
control,  but  the  list  should  have  been  lengthened  by  at  least 
two  particulars :  poiver  to  regulate  interstate  commerce  would  have 


290  THE   CONFEDERATION 

prevented  much  civil  strife ;  and  authority  to  levy  a  low  tariff  for 
revenue  would  have  obviated  the  chief  financial  difficulties. 

196.  Impossibility  of  Amendment.  —  After  all,  the  two 
classes  of  defects  discussed  in  §§  194-195  were  matters  of 
detail.  They  might  have  been  remedied  without  departing 
from  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  union  (as  a  league  of 
sovereign  States).  And  the  States  would  have  corrected  them, 
in  part  at  least,  had  it  not  been  for  the  third  and  more  im- 
portant evil.  The  amending  clause1  demanded  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  thirteen  State  legislatures  for  any  change  in  the 
Articles.  In  practice,  this  proved  equivalent  to  a  prohibition 
upon  any  amendment  whatever. 

In  February,  1781,  even  before  the  Articles  had  gone  into  effect,  Con- 
gress submitted  to  the  States  an  amendment  which  would  have  added  to 
its  powers  the  authority  to  impose  a  five  per  cent  tariff  on  imports,  —  the 
proceeds  to  be  use'd  in  paying  principal  and  interest  on  the  national  debt. 
The  modest  request  for  this  absolutely  indispensable  power  roused  in- 
tense opposition.  "If  taxes  can  thus  be  levied  by  any  power  outside  the 
States,"  cried  misguided  but  ardent  patriots,  "why  did  we  oppose  the  tea 
duties  ?  "  After  a  year's  discussion,  twelve  States  consented  ;  but  Rhode 
Island  voted  that  to  give  financial  independence  to  Congress  would  "  en- 
danger the  liberties  of  the  States,"  and  the  amendment  failed.2  Another 
attempt  was  made  at  once  (1783),  similar  to  the  former  except  that  now 
the  authority  was  to  be  granted  Congress  for  only  twenty-five  years.  Four 
States  voted  No.  Congress  made  them  a  solemn  appeal  not  to  ruin  the 
only  means  of  redeeming  the  sacred  faith  of  the  Union.3    Three  of  them 

1  The  close  of  the  thirteenth  Article  ;  see  in  Source  Book.  Cf.  §  155  on  im- 
portance of  amending  clauses  in  any  constitution. 

2  In  Massachusetts  the  amendment  passed  by  a  majority  of  only  two  in  one 
House  and  of  one  in  the  other  House ;  and  then  it  was  "  vetoed  "  by  Governor 
Hancock.  But  he  had  waited  a  day  too  long-in  sending  his  message,  and  his 
veto  was  void.  Virginia,  which  had  once  voted  Yes,  afterward  repealed  her 
vote.     Thus  Rhode  Island  does  not  bear  the  whole  blame. 

8  Virginia  was  one  of  the  four  States  that  at  first  refused.  "  This  State," 
said  Arthur  Lee,  "  is  resolved  not  to  suffer  the  exercise  of  any  foreign  power 
or  influence  within  it."  And  Richard  Henry  Lee  affirmed  that  if  such  an 
amendment  prevailed,  Liberty  would  "  become  an  empty  name."  Over  against 
such  nonsense,  stood  the  moderate  but  unanswerable  statement  of  the  ap- 
peal of   Congress   (February  15,  1786),  "  The  requisitions  of  Congress  for 


THE   "ARTICLES"  291 

yielded,  but  New  York  (jealous  now  of  her  rapidly  growing  commerce) 
maintained  her  refusal ;  and  the  amendment  again  failed,  —  after  three 
years  of  negotiation.  Far-seeing  men  then  gave  up  hope  of  efficient 
amendment  by  constitutional  means.  Bevolution  (peaceable  or  violent) 
or  anarchy,  —  these  were  the  alternatives. 

197.  Failure  to  act  upon  Individuals.  — The  fourth  evil  was 
fundamental.  It  could  not  be  corrected  except  by  changing 
the  whole  scheme  of  confederation  of  sovereign  States  into 
some  kind  of  a  national  union.  For  three  millions  of  weak 
subjects  Congress  might  have  passed  laws.  On  thirteen 
powerful  subjects  it  could  merely  make  requisitions.  John 
Smith  or  Henry  Jones  would  hardly  think  of  refusing  obedi- 
ence to  a  command  from  a  central  government ;  but  New  York 
or  Virginia  felt  fully  as  strong  as  Congress  itself,  and  would 
do  as  they  pleased.  If  they  refused,  they  could  not  be  coerced 
without  war,  and  probably  some  other  States  would  then  side 
with  them  rather  than  with  Congress.  A  confederation  of  states 
is  necessarily  "government  by  supplication. " 

True,  the  States  were  bound  by  the  most  solemn  pledges 
to  obey  the  demands  of  Congress ;  and  Madison,  Hamilton, 
Jefferson,  and  Washington  all  favored  an  amendment  to 
authorize  Congress  in  express  words  to  use  force  against  a 
delinquent  State.  But  it  was  just  as  well  that  such  an 
amendment  was  not  adopted.  Expressed  or  implied,  the  power 
could  not  have  been  exercised  to  advantage. 

In  the  final  outcome,  it  was  fortunate  that  constitutional  amendment 
was  impossible.  Otherwise,  reasonable  amendment  might  have  patched 
up  the  Articles, for  a  time,  improving  machinery  and  extending  powers 
far  enough  to  keep  the  defective  union  alive.  But  no  ordinary  amendment 
(certainly  none  through  State  legislatures)  could  have  reached  this  funda- 
mental evil.  The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  when  it  came,  per- 
ceived the  need  clearly  and  met  it  courageously.    For  several  years,  from 

eight  years  past  have  been  so  irregular  in  their  operation,  so  uncertain  in 
collection,  and  so  unproductive,  that  a  reliance  on  them  in  future  would  be  no 
less  dishonorable  to  the  understandings  of  those  who  entertain  such  confidence 
than  dangerous  to  the  welfare  and  peace  of  the  Union." 


292  THE   CONFEDERATION 

1 78 1  to  1787,  essayists  and  pamphleteers  had  been  groping  towards  the 
thought  that  we  must  have  a  new  kind  of  federation,  such  that  the  central 
government  could  act  directly  upon  individual  citizens,  and  in  that  final  year 
ideas  had  grown  clear  enough  for  Hamilton  to  write  :  — 

"The  evils  we  experience  do  not  proceed  from  minute  or  partial 
imperfections,  but  from  fundamental  errors  in  the  structure,  which 
cannot  be  amended  otherwise  than  by  an  alteration  in  the  first  prin- 
ciples and  main  pillars  of  the  fabric.  The  great  radical  vice  of  the 
existing  confederacy  is  the  principle  of  Legislation  for  States  in  their 
corporate  or  collective  capacity,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  Indi- 
viduals of  which  they  consist."  —  Federalist,  XI.1 

198.  Excursus:  Two  Kinds  of  Federal  Union. — In  its  funda- 
mental defect,  just  discussed,  the  American  Confederation  of 
1781  resembled  every  federal  union  in  earlier  history.  All 
had  been  confederations  of  states.  The  American  Constitution 
of  1787  was  to  give  to  the  world  a  new  type  of  government,  — 
a  federal  state.  In  the  old  type  the  constituent  units  remained 
sovereign  states  confederated.  In  the  new  type  they  had  been 
fused,  for  certain  purposes  at  least,  into  one  sovereign  unit. 

Of  this  feature  in  our  Constitution  Tocqueville2  has  said:  "  This  Con- 
stitution, which  may  at  first  be  confounded  with  federal  constitutions 
which  have  preceded  it,  rests  in  truth  upon  a  wholly  novel  theory, — a 
great  discovery  in  modern  political  science.  In  all  the  confederations 
which  preceded  the  American  Constitution  of  1787,  the  allied  States, 
for  a  common  object,  agreed  to  obey  the  injunctions  of  a  federal  gov- 
ernment; but  they  reserved  to  themselves  the  right  of  ordaining  and 
enforcing  the  laws  of  the  Union.  .  .  .  [Then,  after  describing  the  way 
in  which  the  American  government  claims  directly  the  allegiance  of 
every  citizen,  and  acts  upon  each  directly  through  its  own  courts  and 
officers]  this  difference  has  produced  the  most  momentous  consequences.1' 


1  The  variety  of  type,  for  emphasis,  is  found  in  Hamilton's  writing. 

2Tocqueville's  Democracy  in  America  (1835)  was  the  first  careful  and  sym- 
pathetic study  of  our  institutions  by  a  foreigner.  For  sixty  years  it  remained 
the  best  text-book  upon  our  government,  until  superseded  in  great  measure 
by  the  work  of  an  English  statesman  (Bryce's  American  Commonwealth). 
Both  these  works  may  be  used  with  advantage  by  high  school  students.  On 
Tocqueville,  see  Modern  History,  §  415,  note. 


THE   PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION  293 

The  new  federal  state  was  a  kind  of  government  interme- 
diate between  a  consolidated  state,  like  England  or  France,  and 
the  old  style  "league"  of  several  states.  It  made  the  word 
"United"  in  the  name  United  States  no  longer  an  adjective, 
but  part  of  a  noun.  As  will  be  seen  in  the  following  para- 
graphs, the  men  of  1787  did  not  aim  consciously  at  just  the 
result  attained.  One  set  of  reformers  wanted  a  consolidated 
state ;  another  wanted  to  preserve  essentially  the  confederation 
of  states.  The  compromise  between  the  two  produced  what 
Tocqueville  called  a  "  discovery  in  political  science."  * 

II.     MAKING  A   NEW   CONSTITUTION 

199.  The  Philadelphia  Convention  called.  —  When  the  second  reve- 
nue amendment  failed  in  1786  (§  196),  an  interstate  convention  had 
already  been  called  to  consider  more  radical  changes.  The  steps  leading 
to  this  remarkable  convention  are  worthy  of  memory. 

Suggestions  for  a  continental  convention  to  form  a  stronger  govern- 
ment had  been  made  from  time  to  time  by  individuals  2  for  several  years  ; 
and  twice  Hamilton  had  secured  from  the  New  York  legislature  a  resolu- 
tion favoring  such  a  measure.  No  concrete  result  followed,  however, 
until  these  proposals  attached  themselves  to  a  commercial  undertaking. 

Washington  had  long  been  interested  financially  in  Western  lands,  and 
at  the  close  of  the  Revolution  he  owned  some  thirty  thousand  acres  in  the 
Virginia  Military  Reserve  (§  180).  A  visit  to  the  West  impressed  him 
powerfully  with  the  need  of  better  communication  with  that  region,  both 
for  business  prosperity  and  as  a  bond  of  political  union  ; 3  and  he  urged 
Virginia  to  take  up  the  construction  of  roadways  to  her  Western  posses- 

1  The  advantages  of  the  new  form  of  government  led  to  its  being  imitated 
by  Switzerland  in  1848,  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada  in  1867,  by  the  German 
Empire  in  1871,  and  by  Australia  in  1900. 

2  As  early  as  1776  Thomas  Paine,  whose  recent  arrival  in  America  left 
him  untroubled  by  the  narrow  patriotism  of  a  New  Englander  or  Virginian, 
had  urged  :  "Nothing  but  a  continental  form  of  government  can  keep  the 
peace  of  the  continent.  .  .  .  Let  a  continental  conference  be  held  to  frame 
a  continental  charter.  .  .  .  Our  strength  and  happiness  are  continental,  not 
provincial.  We  have  every  opportunity  and  every  encouragement  to  form 
the  noblest  and  purest  constitution  on  the  face  of  the  earth." 

3  Referring  to  the  danger  that  the  Westerners  might  join  Spain,  he  wrote: 
"They  .  .  .  stand,  as  it  were,  upon  a  pivot.  The  touch  of  a  feather  would 
turn  them  either  way." 


294  MAKING  a  new  constitution 


w 


sions.  It  was  in  pursuance  of  the  same  idea  that  he  became  president 
of  a  company  for  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac. 
This  matter  required  assent  from  both  Virginia  and  Maryland.  These 
two  States  were  also  in  dispute  over  the  tariffs  at  the  mouth  of  Chesa- 
peake Bay.  At  Washington's  invitation,  commissioners  from  the  two 
States  met  at  Mt.  Vernon,  to  discuss  these  matters ;  and  it  was  decided 
to  hold  another  meeting  to  which  Pennsylvania  also  should  be  invited,  as 
she  was  interested  in  the  improvement  of  Chesapeake  Bay.  Washing- 
ton had  suggested  that  the  proposed  meeting,  since  it  concerned  improve- 
ment in  the  means  of  commerce,  should  consider  also  the  possibility  of 
uniform  duties  on  that  commerce,  —  in  place  of  the  varying  policies  then 
in  effect  in  the  different  States.  Maryland  expressed  approval,  and 
added  a  query  whether  it  might  not  be  well  to  invite  other  States  to  the 
proposed  informal  conference  ;  and  Virginia  finally  issued  an  invitation 
to  all  the  States  to  send  representatives  to  Annapolis,  September  1,  1786. 
Only  five  States  appeared.1  Even  Maryland  failed  to  choose  delegates. 
But  New  Jersey  had  instructed  her  representatives  to  try  to  secure,  not 
only  uniform  duties,  but  also  the  recommendation  of  other  measures 
which  might  seem  necessary  to  render  the  Confederation  adequate  to  the 
needs  of  the  times.  This  thought  was  made  the  basis  of  a  new  call.  The 
delegates  at  Annapolis  adopted  an  address  (drawn  by  Hamilton)  urging 
all  the  States  to  send  commissioners  to  Philadelphia  the  following  May, 
"to  devise  such  further  provisions  as  shall  appear  to  them  necessary  to 
render  the  constitution  of  the  federal  government  adequate  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  Union,"  and  to  report  to  Congress  such  an  act  "as  when 
agreed  to  by  them  [Congress],  and  confirmed  by  the  legislatures  of  every 
State,  will  effectually  provide  for  "  those  exigencies  (cf.  Source  Book, 
No.  153).  At  first  this  call  attracted  little  attention.  But  the  sudden 
increase  of  anarchy  in  the  fall  of  1786  brought  men  to  recognize  the  need 
for  immediate  action.  Here  was  the  opportunity.  Madison  persuaded 
the  Virginia  legislature  to  appoint  delegates,  heading  the  list  with  the 
name  of  Washington.  Other  States  followed  promptly ;  and  the  Phila- 
delphia Convention  became  a  fact.2 

1  A  keen  French  observer  believed  the  failure  part  of  a  "  plot "  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  a  "strong"  government  to  wait  for  more  favorable  conditions. 
Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  152. 

2  Even  in  Virginia  there  was  warm  opposition  to  a  convention.  Patrick 
Henry  refused  to  attend,  and  the  young  Monroe  thought  the  meeting  unwise 
and  unnecessary.  Washington  thought  of  declining  his  appointment,  not 
because  the  meeting  was  not  needed,  but  because  he  expected  it  to  turn  out  a 
fizzle.  Not  until  late  in  March  did  he  agree  to  go,  after  three  months  of 
hesitation. 


q-^-"         THE   PHILADELPHIA   CONVENTION  295 

200.  Composition :  Distrust  of  Democracy.  —  Fifty-five  men, 
at  one  time  or  another,  sat  in  the  famous  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention.1 Twenty -nine  of  these  had  benefited  by  college  life ; 
but  among  those  who  had  missed  that  training  were  Franklin 
and  Washington.  With  few  exceptions  the  members  were 
young  men,  several  of  the  most  active  being  under  thirty. 
The  entire  body  was  English  by  descent  and  traditions.  Three 
notable  members  —  Alexander  Hamilton  of  New  York,  and 
James  Wilson  and  Eobert  Morris  of  Pennsylvania  —  had  been 
born  English  subjects  outside  the  United  States;  and  the 
great  South  Carolina  delegates,  Rutledge  and  the  Pinckneys, 
had  been  educated  in  England. 

Virginia  and  New  Jersey  were  to  give  their  names  to  the  two  schemes 
that  contended  for  mastery  in  the  Convention  ;  and  their  delegations, 
therefore,  are  of  special  interest.  Virginia  sent  seven  members,  —  among 
them,  Washington  ;  George  Mason,  who  eleven  years  before  had  drawn 
the  first  "  State  constitution;  Edmund  Randolph,  her  brilliant  young 
governor  ;  and  Madison,  who  was  to  earn  the  title  "  Father  of  the  Consti- 
tution." New  Jersey  sent  four  delegates,  all  tried  statesmen:  Living- 
stone, eleven  times  her  Governor ;  Patterson,  ten  times  her  Attorney- 
General  ;  Brearly,  her  great  Chief  Justice,  who  had  taken  the  greatest 
step  in  America  so  far  toward  magnifying  the  function  of  the  courts 
(§  207,  &,  note)  ;  and  Houston,  many  times  her  Congressman.  These 
delegations  were  typical.  "Hardly  a  man  in  the  Convention,"  says 
McMaster,  "but  had  sat  in  some  famous  assembly,  had  filled  some  high 
place,  or  had  made  himself  conspicuous  for  learning,  for  scholarship,  or 
for  signal  service  rendered  in  the  cause  of  liberty."  2 

But,  it  must  be  added,  this  illustrious  company  of  patriots 
did  not  believe  in  a  "  government  of  the  people  and  by  the 
people."  In  their  political  thought,  they  were  much  closer  to 
John  Winthrop  than  to  Abraham  Lincoln.  They  wished  a  gov- 
ernment for  the  people,  but  by  what  they  were  fond  of  calling 
"the  wealth  and  intelligence  of  the  country."     At  best,  they 

1  Seventy-three  delegates  were  appointed,  but  eighteen  failed  to  appear. 
For  other  absenteeism,  cf.  the  following  paragraphs. 

2  Other  names  of  note  occur  in  §§  200,  202,  203.  For  a  description  of  most 
of  them  by  an  associate,  cf .  Source  Book,  No.  160. 


/e^x^^o  y  <?$  ^ 


296  MAKING  A  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

were  willing  only  so  far  to  divide  power  between  "  the  few  " 
and  "  the  many "  as  to  keep  each  class  from  oppressing  the 
other,  —  and  they  felt  particular-  tenderness  for  "  the  few."  Pure 
democracy  they  abhorred  as  (in  Gerry's1  words)  "the  worst 
of  all  political  evils." 

• 
Necessarily  the  men  of  the  Convention  belonged  to  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, not  the  twentieth;  but,  beyond  that,  they  represented  the  crest  of 
a  reactionary  movement  of  their  own  day.  The  same  causes  that  made 
them  desire  a  stronger  government  made  them  wish  also  a  more  aristo- 
cratic government.  It  seemed  axiomatic  to  them  that  the  unhappy 
conditions  of  their  country  were  due  (as  Gerry  again  phrased  it)  to  "an 
excess  of  democracy."  In  the  early  Revolutionary  years,  the  leaders  had 
been  forced  to  throw  themselves  into  the  arms  of  democracy  for  protec- 
tion against  England  (§  137).  Among  the  patriots,  conservative  utter- 
ance had  been  reduced  to  cautious  whispers  ;  and,  in  America  at  large, 
those  years  had  been  marked  by  a  burst  of  noble  enthusiasm  for  human- 
ity and  of  faith  in  popular  government.  But,  when  the  struggle 
was  over,  the  "leaders  of  society"  began  to  look  coldly  upon  further 
partnership  with  distasteful  allies  no  longer  needed  ;  and  this  inevitable 
tendency  was  magnified  by  the  unhappy  turbulence  of  the  times.  By 
1785,  especially  among  the  professional  and  commercial  classes,  a  con- 
servative reaction  had  set  in,  to  express  itself  emphatically  in  the  Philadel- 
phia Convention.  Indeed  this  select  body  was  far  more  aristocratic  than 
the  average  of  American  society  even  in  those  reactionary  years.2 


iElbridge  Gerry  was  one  of  the  four  delegates  from  Massachusetts,  perhaps 
the  most  democratic  of  them,  and,  some  years  later,  a  real  democratic  leader. 

2  The  debates  took  place  under  the  most  solemn  pledges  of  secrecy,  and  no 
complete  record  of  them  was  made  public  until  more  than  fifty  years  later, 
after  the  last  survivor  had  passed  away.  Cf.  §  201,  note.  The  quotations 
that  follow  in  the  text  are  all  taken  from  those  debates  unless  otherwise 
stated.  When  the  leaders  came  before  the  public  to  advocate  the  ratification 
of  the  Constitution  their  speeches  and  writings  took  a  distinctly  different 
tone ;  though  even  then  their  arguments  would  be  regarded  to-day  as  decid- 
edly undemocratic. 

Says  Woodrow  Wilson  {Division  and  Reunion,  12) :  "The  Federal  govern- 
ment was  not  by  intention  a  democratic  government.  In  plan  and  in  structure 
it  had  been  meant  to  check  the  sweep  and  power  of  popular  majorities.  .  .  . 
[It]  had  in  fact  been  originated  and  organized  upon  the  initiative,  and  pri- 


THE   PHILADELPHIA   CONVENTION  297 

The  hostile  expressions  of  Gerry  regarding  democracy  (quoted  above) 
were  spoken  May  31,  the  second  day  of  debate.  The  same  day,  Roger 
Sherman  of  Connecticut  objected  to  the  popular  election  of  the  members 
even  of  the  lower  House  of  Congress,  because  "  the  people,  immediately, 
should  have  as  little  to  do  as  may  be  about  the  government"  ;  and 
Randolph  explained  that  the  Senate,  in  the  Virginia  plan,  was  designed 
as  "a  check  against  this  tendency"  [democracy].  In  tracing  to  their 
origin  the  evils  under  which  the  country  labored,  "every  man,"  he 
affirmed,  '•  had  found  [that  origin]  in  the  turbulence  and  follies  of  de- 
mocracy "  Two  days  later,  Dickinson  declared  "  a  limited  monarchy 
.  .  .  one  of  the  best  governments  in  the  world.  It  was  not  certain  that 
equal  blessings  were  derivable  from  any  other  form.  ...  A  limited 
monarchy,  however,  was  out  of  the  question.  The  spirit  of  the  times 
forbade  the  experiment.  .  .  .  But  though  a  form  the  most  perfect  per- 
haps in  itself  be  unattainable,  we  must  not  despair  ;  "  and  he  proceeded  to 
suggest  ways  to  give  weight  to  property  in  the  new  government.  June  6, 
he  returned  to  this  theme,  urging  that  the  Senate  should  be  "carried 
through  such  a  refining  process  [viz.,  indirect  elections  and  property 
qualifications]  as  will  assimilate  it,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  to  the  House  of 
Lords  in  England  "  ;  and  the  next  day,  he  moved  that  Senators  be  elected 
by  the  State  legislatures,  "because  he  wished  the  Senate  to  consist  of  the 
most  distinguished  characters,  —  distinguished  for  their  rank  in  life  and 
for  their  weight  of  property,  and  bearing  as  strong  a  likeness  to  the 
British  House  of  Lords  as  possible"  ;  and  he  thought  such  characters 
"  more  likely  to  be  selected  by  the  State  legislatures  than  in  any  other 
mode."  1 

Gouverneur  Morris  of  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  and 
effective  men  in  the  Convention,  also  believed  it  essential  that  the  Senate 
should  be  "an  aristocratic  body,"  composed  of  rich  men  holding  office 
for  life.  Said  he,  "  It  must  have  great  personal  property  ;  it  must  have 
the  aristocratic  spirit;  it  must  love  to  lord  it  through  pride."  Morris, 
Rufus  King  of  Massachusetts,  and  Rutledge  strove  strenuously  to  have 
wealth  especially  represented  in  the  lower  House  also,  affirming,  each  of 
them,  that  "property  is  the  main  object  of  government"  (§205)  ;  nor 


marily  in  the  interest  of  the  mercantile  and  wealthy  classes."    The  Source 
Book,  No.  152,  presents  a  like  opinion  by  a  shrewd  foreign  observer. 

1  It  would  be  impossible  to-day  to  hear  that  method  of  election  (which  we 
still  keep)  advocated  upon  these  grounds  of  the  original  proposer.  This  fact 
shows  somewhat  of  our  progress  toward  democracy.  Like  Gerry  (note  on  page 
'296),  Dickinson  was  a  good  deal  of  a  democrat,  temporarily  swept  away  by 
the  aristocratic  reaction. 


298  MAKING  A  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

did  this  claim,  so  un-American  to  our  ears,  call  forth  one  protest  that 
government  should  concern  itself  as  much  with  human  rights  as  with 
property  rights.  Hamilton  held,  perhaps,  the  most  extreme  ground 
against  democracy.  He  "  acknowledged  himself  not  to  think  favorably  of 
republican  government  [i.e.  not  of  any  form  but  monarchic].  ...  He  was 
sensible  at  the  same  time  that  it  would  be  unwise  [for  the  Convention] 
to  propose  one  of  any  other  form.  But,  in  his  private  opinion,  he  had 
no  scruple  in  declaring,  supported  as  he  was  by  the  opinion  of  so  many 
of  the  good  and  wise,  that  the  British  government  was  the  best  in  the 
world,  and  he  doubted  much  whether  anything  short  of  it  would  do  in 
America."  It  was  "the  model  to  which  we  should  approach  as  nearly 
as  possible."  The  House  of  Lords  he  styled  "  a  most  noble  institu- 
tion," especially  commending  it  as  "a permanent  barrier  against  every 
pernicious  innovation.''''  Hamilton  then  presented  a  detailed  plan,  which, 
he  said,  represented  his  own  views  of  what  was  desirable  in  America  :  — 
an  Executive  for  life,1  with  extreme  monarchic  powers  (including  an 
absolute  veto),  chosen  by  two  degrees  of  indirect  election;2  a  Senate 
for  life,  chosen  by  indirect  election;  and  a  representative  assembly 
chosen  directly  by  the  people  ;  this  government  to  appoint  the  governors 
of  the  States,  and,  through  them,  to  exercise  an  absolute  veto  upon  all 
State  legislation. 

Perhaps  the  deep  distrust  of  popular  government  and  of  human  nature 
was  shown  nowhere  more  alarmingly  than  in  .the  violent  objection  to 
the  wise  provision,  finally  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  excluding  Con- 
gressmen from  Federal  offices  (Art  I,  sec.  6).  Mason  pointed  to  the 
shameful  corruption  and  venality  in  England  at  that  day,  due  to  the  want 
of  such  a  rule,  where  accordingly  the  king's  ministers  secured  their 
majorities  notoriously  by  bribing  members  of  Parliament  with  lucrative 
offices  and  sinecures.3  Hamilton,  Morris,  and  Gorham  of  Massachusetts, 
defended  that  bribery  in  England,  and  wished  to  leave  it  possible  to  the 
executive  here,  as  perhaps  "necessary,"  at  times,  "to  secure  to  govern- 

1 "  For  good  behavior,"  which  meant  for  life,  subject  only  to  impeachment 
in  extreme  cases  —  a  remedy  practically  impossible  under  such  a  frame  of  gov- 
ernment. It  is  interesting  to  note  that  several  members  expressed  themselves 
in  favor  of  a  life-executive ;  and  two  formal  motions  to  that  effect  were 
pressed  to  a  vote.  The  second  was  defeated  by  only  six  states  to  four 
(July  17). 

2  Freeholders  to  choose  an  electoral  college,  which  should  choose  a  more 
select  electoral  college,  which  doubly  refined  body  should  choose  the  life 
"  Governor." 

8Cf.  Modern  History,  §  416,  for  a  like  condition  in  France  at  an  even  later 
time. 


THE   PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION  299 

ment  its  proper  influence."  Said  Morris:  "We  must  govern  men 
through  their  vices."  "  Vices,  as  they  exist,  must  be  turned  against  each 
other. "  "  Loaves  and  fishes  must  bribe  the  demagogues. ' '  And  Hamilton 
added  :  "  We  must  take  man  as  we  find  him,  and  if  we  wish  him  to  serve 
the  public,  we  must  enlist  his  passions  in  doing  so." 

Such  statements  ivent  almost  unchallenged. — Dissent,  if  ex- 
pressed at  all,  cloaked  itself  in  apologetic  and  modest  phrase, 
or  excused  itself  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  This  was  due 
to  the  unfortunate  absence  of  a  group  of  great  figures  whom 
we  might  have  expected  to  see  in  that  gathering.  Every 
prominent  patriot  of  Revolutionary  fame,  on  the  conservative 
side,  was  present,  except  John  Adams  and  John  Jay;  but, 
great  as  the  Virginia  delegation  was,  it  might  have  been 
greater  still,  had  it  included  Thomas  Jefferson,  Patrick  Henry, 
Richard  Henry  Lee,  or  Thomas  Paine ;  and  it  would  no  doubt 
have  been  well  had  Massachusetts  sent  Samuel  Adams,  or 
New  York  her  great  war-governor,  George  Clinton.  Four  or 
five  of  these  democratic  leaders  would  have  given  a  different 
tone  to  the  debates.  As  things  were,  the  lonely  representatives 
of  democracy  were  George  Mason  and  the  aged  and  genial 
Franklin.  And  the  measure  Franklin  seems  to  have  had 
closest  at  heart  was  the  undemocratic  one  of  abolishing  all  pay 
for  the  national  executive  and  legislature  (a  measure  which 
would  have  thoroughly  insured  that  all  such  offices  should  be 
the  monopoly  of  a  leisure  class)  ;  while  even  George  Mason,  as 
Madison  reports  him,  "  admitted  that  we  had  been  too  demo- 
cratic," though  he  was  fearful  the  Convention  was  going  to 
the  other  extreme.1  Mason,  too,  advocated  a  property  qualifi- 
cation for  eligibility  to  the  Senate,  because  "  one  important 
object  in  constituting  the  Senate  was  to  secure  the  rights  of 
property  "  (June  26)  ;  and,  a  month  later,  he  moved  for  a,  landed 
qualification  for  membership  even  in  the  lower  House.2 

1  Cf.  also  Mason's  letter  to  his  son  {Source  Book,  No.  155). 

2  Compare  with  Mason's  ideas  eleven  years  earlier.  (Source  Book,  No.  136, 
comment.)  Mason's  feelings  about  the  aristocratic  tendencies  in  the  Con- 
vention are  referred  to  in  ib.  Nos.  155,  157,  162,  and  163. 


300  MAKING  A  NEW  CONSTITUTION 


V 


i 


201.  Problems  and  Models.  —  Some  undemocratic  features  of 
the  Constitution,  resulting  from  the  attitude  of  the  Convention 
just  portrayed,  will  be  treated  later  (§§  207,  208).  It  is  con- 
venient first  to  dispose  of  the  provisions  over  which  the  Con- 
vention itself  had  serious  differences  of  opinion. 

Such  differences  were  many.  There  were  present  Na- 
tionalists and  State-sovereignty  men,  "  Northerners "  and 
"  Southerners,"  commercial  interests  and  agricultural  interests, 
advocates  of  extending  slavery  and  friends  of  restricting  slav- 
ery ;  and  these  various  lines  were  so  intertangled  as  to  prevent 
any  definite  and  continuous  "  parties  "  in  the  Convention.  It 
is  customary  and  convenient  to  speak  of  a  "  large-State 
party  "  and  "  a  small-State  party  "  ;  but  the  men  who  divided 
in  this  particular  way  on  one  great  question  found  themselves 
in  quite  different  combinations  on  almost  every  other  problem. 
No  praise  is  too  high  for  the  patience  and  "  sweet  reasonable- 
ness "  (failing  only  with  a  few  individuals  and  on  rare  occa- 
sions) with  which  on  all  these  matters  the  great  statesmen  of 
that  memorable  assembly  strove  first  to  convince  one  another, 
and,  failing  that,  to  find  a  rational  basis  for  compromise. 

High  praise,  too,  is  due  their  profound  aversion  to  mere  theory,  their 
instinctive  preference  for  that  which  had  been  proven  good.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone once  said  :  "As  the  British  constitution  is  the  most  subtle  organ- 
ism which  has  proceeded  from  progressive  history,  so  the  American 
constitution  is  the  most  wonderful  work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  moment 
by  the  hand  and  purpose  of  man."  This  sentence  has  helped  to  spread 
the  idea  that  the  Philadelphia  Convention  invented  a  whole  set  of  new 
institutions.  Such  an  impression  is  mistaken.  Practically  every  piece  of 
political  machinery  in  the  Constitution  was  taken  (sometimes  with  a 
slight  modification)  from  the  familiar  workings  of  the  State  constitutions.1 

At  the  same  time,  the  total  result  icas  new, — a  new  type  of  federal 
government  different  from   anything  the   world  had  seen.     True,    the 

1  The  notes  to  the  Constitution  in  the  Appendix  give  many  illustrations. 
English  precedent  influenced  the  Convention  profoundly,  but  after  all  most 
effectively  through  its  earlier  influence  upon  State  institutions.  Other  coun- 
tries were  sometimes  referred  to  in  the  debates  as  examples,  or,  more  com- 
monly, as  warnings;  but  such  references  were  mainly  academic  in  character 
and  superficial  in  their  influence. 


THE  PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION  301 

principle  of  nationality  and  the  principle  of  state  sovereignty  had  long 
been  contending  in  American  experience,  and  a  compromise  between  the 
two  at  Philadelphia  produced  this  new  form  of  government  (§  203). 
Therefore  it  is  sometimes  argued  plausibly  that  even  in  this  respect  the 
Constitution  was  merely  an  expression  "  at  a  given  moment"  of  a  long 
and  complex  historical  development.  But  the  work  of  the  Convention 
was  itself  a  supreme  crisis  in  American  development.  The  Convention 
did  not  merely  register  past  history  in  its  Constitution  :  it  made  history 
by  its  decisions  ;  and,  spite  of  the  undemocratic  phases  of  its  work,  it  must 
forever  tower  a  notable  landmark  in  human  progress. 

202.  Procedure.1  —  Some  months  before  the  meeting,  Madi- 
son had  drawn  up  several  propositions  concerning  a  new 
government,  for  the  consideration  of  such  correspondents  as 
Jefferson  and  Washington.  The  Virginia  delegates  were  the 
first  to  arrive  at  Philadelphia ;  and,  while  they  waited  for 
others,  they  caucused  daily,  formulating  these  suggestions  of 
Madison  into  the  Virginia  Plan,  — which  was  then  presented  to 
the  Convention,  May  29,  by  Kandolph,  in  a  brilliant  speech. 

The  plan  was  embodied  in  fifteen  resolutions.  It  provided  for  a  two- 
House  legislature.  The  lower  House  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  "people  " 
(that  is,  by  those  who  should  be  given  the  franchise),  and  was  to  be 
apportioned  among  the  States  in  proportion  to  population  or  wealth  (so 
that  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  Massachusetts  each  would  have  sixteen 

1  The  Convention  lasted  four  months,  —  from  May  25  to  September  17. 
Most  that  we  know  about  it  comes  from  Madison's  notes.  Madison  had 
been  disappointed  in  the  meager  information  regarding  the  establishment  of 
earlier  confederacies,  and  he  believed  that  upon  the  success  of  the  federa- 
tion now  to  be  formed  "would  be  staked  the  happiness  of  a  people,  great 
even  in  its  infancy,  aud  possibly  the  cause  of  liberty  throughout  the  world." 
Accordingly,  he  determined  to  preserve  full  records  of  its  genesis.  Missing 
no  session,  he  kept  careful  notes  of  each  day's  proceedings  and  of  each 
speaker's  arguments ;  and  each  evening  he  wrote  up  these  notes  more  fully, 
submitting  them  sometimes  to  the  various  debaters  for  correction.  In  1837 
Congress  bought  the  manuscript  from  Mrs.  Madison,  and  published  it  as 
"Madison's  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention"  (an  unhappy  title, 
since  it  leads  to  confusion  with  the  official  "  Journal"  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Convention).  A  few  other  members  took  imperfect  notes  and  several  wrote 
letters  that  throw  light  upon  the  attitude  of  certain  men.  All  these  sources 
are  collected  and  edited  by  Professor  Max  Farrand  in  The  Records  of  the 
Federal  Convention  of  1787  (1911). 


• 


302  MAKING  A  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

or  seventeen  delegates  to  one  from  Delaware  or  Rhode  Island).  The 
upper  House  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  lower.  There  was  no  provision 
for  equality  of  the  States  in  either  branch  of  the  legislature,  and  no  secu- 
rity that  a  small  State  would  have  any  representative  at  all  in  the  upper 
House.  As  to  power,  this  central  legislature  was  not  limited  in  any  defi- 
nite way  :  virtually,  it  was  to  fix  its  own  limits.  And  —  a  central  feature 
of  the  plan  —  it  was  to  have  an  absolute  veto  upon  any  State  legislation 
which  it  thought  inconsistent  with  national  laws. 

This  went  much  farther  toward  consolidation  than  the  final  result  was 
to  go.  It  would  have  left  the  States  hardly  more  than  convenient  admin- 
istrative districts,  and  would  have  created  a  government  more  like  that 
of  modern  France  than  like  that  of  the  present  United  States.1 

[For  reference  as  the  account  progresses.] 

The  further  procedure  had  seven  periods. 

a.  For  two  weeks,  in  committee  of  the  whole,2  the  Randolph  resolu- 
tions were  debated,  clause  by  clause.  In  the  end  they  were  elaborated 
into  nineteen  of  the  same  general  character.  Then  came  an  interruption. 
So  far,  the  large  States,  in  favor  of  real  national  union,  had  had  things 
their  own  way ;  but  at  last  the  small-State  delegates  had  united  upon 
the  New  Jersey  Plan,  which  was  now  presented  to  the  Convention  by 
Patterson. 

The  Virginia  Plan  would  have  substituted  for  the  old  Confederation  a 
wholly  new  type  of  government.  The  New  Jersey  Plan  would  merely 
have  amended  the  Confederation  in  some  particulars  (and  so  was  more  in 
accord  with  the  instructions  all  delegates  had  received  from  the  legislatures 
that  appointed  them).  It  would  not  have  touched  the  third  or  fourth  de- 
fects in  the  Articles,  as  those  defects  are  classified  above  (§§  194,  197)  ; 
but  it  would  have  helped  cure  the  other  evils.  It  would  have  given  the 
central  government  more  powers  (i.e.  to  impose  tariffs  and  to  use  force 

iThis  and  the  New  Jersey  Plan  are  given  in  full  in  the  Source  Book. 

2  Legislatures  and  conventions  go  into  "  committee  of  the  whole  "  to  secure 
greater  freedom  of  debate  (and  sometimes  more  secrecy  in  voting)  than  the 
usual  rules  permit  in  regular  session.  When  the  committee  votes  "  to  rise," 
the  regular  presiding  officer  resumes  the  chair,  and  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee reports.  (Usually  the  votes  and  debates  are  not  entered  in  the  official 
record,  but  only  this  report  of  the  result.)  The  assembly  then  takes  up  the 
report  of  this  committee,  as  it  would  that  of  any  other  committee,  for  dis- 
cussion and  action  ;  but  the  real  fate  of  legislative  measures,  and  the  most 
important  amendments  and  debates,  come  commonly  in  committee  of  the 
whole. 


THE   PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION  303 

against  a  delinquent  State) ,  and  it  designed  great  improvements  in  govern- 
mental machinery.  Congress  was  still  to  remain  a  gathering  of  delegates 
from  sovereign  and  equal  States ;  but  there  was  to  be  a  true  executive 
and  an  imposing  federal  judiciary. 

b.  The  committee  of  the  whole  gave  another  week  to  a  comparison  of 
the  two  plans.  Then,  by  what  seemed  a  decisive  vote,  it  set  aside  the 
new  proposals  and  returned  to  the  Virginia  Plan  as  the  basis  for  further 
work. 

c.  Not  now  in  committee,  but  in  formal  Convention,  the  nineteen 
resolutions  were  again  considered,  clause  by  clause,  —  during  the  six 
weeks  from  June  19  to  July  26.  Midway  in  this  period  came  the  great 
crisis,  when  day  by  day  the  Convention  tottered  on  the  brink  of  disrup- 
tion in  the  contest  between  large  and  small  States,  —  a  calamity  which 
was  finally  averted  by  the  Connecticut  Compromise  (§  203). 

d.  The  Convention  then  took  an  adjournment  of  eleven  days,  while 
the  conclusions  so  far  agreed  upon  were  put  into  the  form  of  a  constitu- 
tion, in  Articles  and  Sections,  by  a  Committee  of  Detail.1 

e.  From  August  6  to  September  10,  the  Convention  considered  this 
draft  of  a  constitution,  section  by  section. 

/.  Next,  a  Committee  of  Revision  (often referred  to  as  the  "Committee 
on  Style  ")  redrafted  the  Constitution  according  to  the  latest  conclusions 
of  the  Convention.  To  Gouverneur  Morris,  chairman  of  this  committee, 
we  owe  in  large  degree  the  admirable  arrangement  and  clear  wording  of 
the  document. 

g.  Once  more  the  convention  reviewed  its  work  in  this  new  form 
(September  12-17).  This  time  few  changes  were  made;  and  Septem- 
ber 17  the  Constitution  in  its  final  form  was  signed  by  thirty-nine  dele- 
gates, representing  twelve  States.2 

1  This  committee  also  added  a  large  amount  of  material  upon  matters 
which  the  Convention  had  not  discussed  at  all,  —  some  of  it  merely  technical, 
some  of  it  highly  important.  Unhappily,  except  for  the  results,  we  know 
very  little  of  the  work  of  this  or  of  the  other  great  committees  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

2  Thirteen  of  the  fifty-five  delegates  had  permanently  withdrawn  or  were 
temporarily  absent ;  and  three  of  those  present  (Randolph,  Mason,  and  Gerry) 
refused  to  sign.  Randolph  afterwards  urged  ratification  in  Virginia,  but  the 
remaining  dissentients  remained  earnest  opponents  of  ratification.  In  July, 
Mason  had  said  that  it  could  not  be  more  inconvenient  for  any  gentleman  to 
remain  absent  from  his  private  affairs  than  it  was  for  him ;  but  he  would  "  bury 


304  MAKING  A  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

203.  The  Connecticut  Compromise.  —  Early  in  the  debates,  the 
Connecticut  delegates  {Roger  Sherman,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  and 
William  Johnson)  had  two  or  three  times  proposed  a  compro- 
mise between  the  Virginia  and  the  New  Jersey  plans,  i.e.  that  the 
lower  House  of  the  legislature  should  represent  the  people,  and 
that  the  upper  House  should  represent  States,  each  State  hav- 
ing there  an  equal  vote.  When  feeling  ran  highest  between 
the  large-State  and  small-State  parties  (§  202,  c),  this  pro- 
posal was  renewed  with  effect. 

The  small-State  delegates  had  served  notice  that  they  would 
not  submit  to  the  Virginia  Plan  in  its  extreme  form.  Debate 
grew  violent.  A  large-State  delegate  threatened  that  if  not 
persuasion,  then  the  sword,  should  consolidate  a  union.  Small- 
State  men  retorted  bitterly  that  they  would  seek  European  pro- 
tection, if  needful,  against  coercion.1 

Each  State  had  one  vote.  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  Massachusetts 
were  the  true  "  large  States  ";  but  with  them,  on  this  issue  were  ranged 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia  (cf.  §  178,  and  Source  Book, 
No.  146).  New  Jersey,  New  York,2  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Connecticut 
comprised  the  "  small-State  party."  Rhode  Island  never  appointed  dele- 
gates, and  the  New  Hampshire  representatives  were  not  on  the  ground  until 
July  23,  after  this  question  had  been  settled.  Had  these  two  States  taken 
part,  the  "small  States"  would  have  controlled  the  Convention  from  the 
first,  and  no  important  result  could  have  been  secured. 


his  bones  in  this  city,  rather  than  expose  his  country  to  the  consequences  of  a 
dissolution  without  anything  being  done."  August  31,  however,  he  declared 
he  "  would  sooner  chop  off  his  right  hand  than  put  it  to  the  Constitution  as  it 
now  stands."  His  "objections"  are  given  in  the  Source  Book,  Nos.  162 
and  163. 

1  The  debates  of  this  critical  day  are  given  practically  in  full  —  from  Madi- 
son's account  —  in  the  Source  Book,  No.  161. 

2  New  York  was  then  little  more  than  the  valley  of  the  Hudson  (§  179, 
note).  Hamilton,  delegate  from  that  State,  was  an  extreme  centralizer;  but 
he  was  outvoted  always  by  his  two  colleagues.  In  the  height  of  this  debate, 
those  gentlemen  seceded  from  the  Convention ;  and  after  that  event  New  York 
had  no  vote  whatever,  since  the  legislature  had  provided  that  the  State  should 
not  be  represented  by  less  than  two  of  the  three  delegates.  Partly  for  this 
reason,  Hamilton  had  little  influence  upon  the  work  of  the  Convention.  His 
great  service  came  after  its  adjournment,  in  securing  ratification. 


THE  CONNECTICUT   COMPROMISE  305 

The  critical  vote  came  July  2,  after  a  week's  strenuous 
debate.  The  first  ten  States  to  vote  stood  five  to  five.  If 
either  party  won,  the  other  was  likely  to  organize  a  sep- 
arate convention.  Georgia  was  still  to  vote.  Under  these 
conditions,  one  of  the  two  Georgia  delegates  voted  on  the 
small-State  side  (against  his  own  convictions),  so  as  to  throw 
away  the  vote  of  his  State  and  leave  the  result  a  tie.  This 
gave  time  for  reflection.  Said  Roger  Sherman,  "  We  are  now 
at  full  stop,  and  nobody  [he  supposed]  meant  that  we  should 
break  up  without  doing  something."  In  the  desultory  dis- 
cussion that  followed,  several  members  suggested  a  committee 
to  devise  some  compromise.  Finally,  the  matter  was  referred 
to  a  Committee  of  Eleven,  one  from  each  State  present,  and 
the  Convention  adjourned  for  three  days. 

The  moderate  men,  who  desired  compromise,  won  their  victory  in 
selecting  the  members  of  this  committee.  The  most  uncompromising  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  in  this  dispute  were  the  great  leaders  from 
Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  Massachusetts,  —  Madison  and  Randolph, 
Wilson  and  Gouverneur  Morris,  and  Rufus  King.  Desperate  as  the  case 
stood,  Madison  and  Wilson  spoke  against  referring  the  question  to  a 
committee  at  all.  Properly  enough,  these  men  were  all  left  off  the 
committee,  the  places  from  their  states  being  filled  by  those  of  their 
colleagues  most  in  sympathy  with  small-State  views, — Mason,  Franklin, 
and  Gerry.  s  ~"  ^ — '  / 

July  5,  this  committee  reported  once  more  the  Connecticut 
Compromise.  Large-state  leaders  were  still  opposed ;  but,  after 
ten  days  more  of  debate,  the  plan  carried  by  a  bare  major- 
ity. Again  the  few  irreconcilables  from  the  large  States 
seemed  on  the  point  of  breaking  up  the  Convention.  An  im- 
mediate adjournment  for  a  day  gave  time  for  blood  to  cool, 
however,  and  the  next  morning  an  early  caucus  of  the  large 
States  agreed,  informally,  to  abide  by  the  vote,  —  as  the  only 
alternative  to  complete  failure.  At  the  opening  of  the  next 
session,  Gouverneur  Morris  moved  a  reconsideration  of  the 
compromise;  but  he  found  no  second.  Tlie  genius  of  our 
government  had  been  fixed,  — partly  national,  partly  federal. 


306  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

A  few  days  later  it  was  decided  that  the  two  delegates  from  each 
State  in  the  Senate  should  vote  not  as  a  unit,  but  "by  head."  This  was 
a  real  concession  to  the  national  party  ;  but  it  was  more  than  offset,  in 
the  closing  days  of  the  Convention,  by  a  provision  (granted  to  conciliate 
the  small  States)  that  "No  State,  without  its  own  consent,  shall  be  deprived 
of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate"  (Art.  V,  close). 

204.  Excursus:  States  and  Nation.1  —  As  a  consequence  of 
the  "Connecticut  Compromise,"  and  of  other  arrangements 
that  followed,  each  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  directly  sub- 
ject to  two  distinct  authorities,  the  Federal  government  and  a 
State  government.  Here  lies  the  peculiarity  of  our  Constitu- 
tion. The  Federal  government  is  no  longer  compelled  to  act 
indirectly,  through  State  governments,  as  under  the  old  Con- 
federation. It  acts  directly  upon  the  citizen,  but  only  within 
a  prescribed,  field.  Elsewhere  the  State  retains  complete  au- 
thority,—  as  supreme  within  its  domain  as  the  Central  gov- 
ernment in  its,  and  neither  with  any  right  to  trespass  on  the 
field  of  the  other.2 

The  Constitution  tried  to  mark  off  the  two  fields  from  one  another  by 
three  devices:  (1)  by  "enumerating,"  in  eighteen  paragraphs  (Art.  I, 
sec.  8)  the  powers  given  to  Congress  ;3  (2)  by  forbidding  certain  powers 

1  This  long  section  (204)  should  he  first  read,  and  afterward  discussed  with 
frequent  reference  to  open  books. 

2  Justice  Cooley  puts  this  compactly  in  his  great  work,  Principles  of 
Constitutional  Law  (34):  "When  a  particular  power  is  found  to  belong  to 
the  States,  they  are  entitled  to  the  same  complete  independence  in  its  exer- 
cise as  is  the  National  government  in  wielding  its  authority."  There  should 
be  no  possible  confusion  of  this  relation  between  States  and  Nation  with  the 
relation  between  a  State  and  its  subdivisions.  Counties,  cities,  school  dis- 
tricts have  their  distinct  fields  of  authority,  to  be  sure,  but  they  derive  that 
authority  from  the  State  and  hold  it  subject  to  regulation  by  the  State.  This 
is  in  no  sense  true  of  the  State  in  relation  to  the  Federal  government. 

3  The  Virginia  Plan  contained  no  enumeration ;  and  when  such  a  device 
was  suggested  in  debate,  it  was  always  postponed  as  impracticable.  The 
New  Jersey  Plan  did  contain  a  brief  enumeration  of  important  powers ;  and  a 
longer  one  was  included  in  a  plan  presented  early  in  the  debates  by  Pinckney 
(long  lost,  but  recently  rediscovered).  Both  these  plans  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Detail  (§202,  d).  Moreover,  Sherman  had  presented,  shortly 
before,  a  detailed  enumeration  (of  which  we  have  no  copy) ;    and  Ellsworth, 


STATES  AND  NATION  307 

to  the  States  (Art.  I,  sec.  10) ;  and  (3)  by  providing  (expressly  in  the 
tenth  amendment,  and  by  implication  throughout)  that  powers  not 
granted  to  the  Federal  government  are  reserved  to  the  States.  It  is 
customary,  therefore,  to  call  our  government  "a  government  of  enu- 
merated powers." 

Those  powers  are  vast.  They  include  sole  control  over  foreign  rela- 
tions (with  the  making  of  peace  and  war,  and  consequently  of  maintain- 
ing military  and  naval  forces) ;  and,  in  domestic  matters,  the  control  of 
naturalization,  coinage  and  weights  and  measures,  the  post  office  and 
postal  service,  copyrights  and  patents,  commerce  between  citizens  living 
in  different  States,  and  taxation  so  far  as  needful  to  enable  the  Govern- 
ment to  care  for  all  these  duties. 

Imposing  as  is  this  enumeration,  these  powers  touch  our  daily  life  less 
closely  and  less  vitally  than  do  the  powers  reserved  to  the  States.  The 
State  regulates  the  franchise  (indirectly,  even  the  Federal  franchise  *), 
marriage  and  divorce  and  all  family  relations,  inheritance,  education,  all 
property  and  industrial  conditions  (except  those  that  may  be  connected 
with  interstate  commerce),  and  all  criminal  law,  as  well  as  all  subdivision 
of  powers  between  the  smaller  units  within  the  State.  One  illustration 
brings  out  vividly  the  importance  of  the  field  of  State  legislation.  If  the 
student  will  list  the  important  legislative  reforms  in  England  during 
the  nineteenth  century  (the  "century  of  reform"2),  he  will  find  that, 
of  the  twelve  or  fourteen  great  subjects,  only  two  or  three,  in  a  govern- 
ment like  ours,  could  have  come  before  Congress,  while  all  the  rest  would 
have  belonged  to  the  States.  (Cf.  also  §  459  ft*,  for  very  recent  State 
activity  in  American  reform.) 

In  a  federal  government  there  is  inevitably  a  constant  con- 
test between  the  advocates  of  stronger  central  control  and  the 
upholders  of  the  rights  of  the  States.  Parties  have  sometimes 
divided  on  these  lines ;  but  in  general  it  is  a  question  mainly 
of  "  in's  "  and  "  out's."  In  power,  either  party  is  apt  to  seek 
to  extend  the  province  of  the  government.     In  opposition,  the 


Sherman's  colleague  and  disciple,  was  a  member  of  the  committee  and  prob- 
ably saw  that  Sherman's  proposal  was  duly  considered  there.  At  all  events, 
the  report  of  this  committee,  on  August  6,  contained  an  enumeration  much  as 
we  have  it  in  the  Constitution  to-day. 

1  Except  as  certain  provisions  have  been  put  beyond  the  control  of  either 
State  or  Congress  by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

2  Cf.  Modern  History,  §  542  ff. 


308  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

same  party  appeals  to  States  rights,  to  restrict  a  power  which 
seems  dangerous  in  the  hands  of  opponents. 

The  party  anxious  to  limit  the  Federal  government  has 
always  sought  to  restrict  it  closely  to  the  powers  precisely 
enumerated.  Its  opponents  have  met  its  war  cry,  "  a  govern- 
ment of  enumerated  powers,"  with  the  shibboleth,  "  Implied 
powers  "  (powers  implied  in  those  expressly  granted,  or  result- 
ing naturally  from  them,  or  necessary  to  their  proper  exercise). 
It  is  under  cover  of  this  phrase  that  the  vast  development  of 
national  power  has  taken  place.  Thus  the  Constitution  gave 
Congress  power  to  regulate  interstate  commerce.  To  the  men 
of  that  day,  that  power  meant  only  authority  to  prevent  one 
State  setting  up  barriers  against  another's  commerce.  Under 
the  same  phrase  to-day  Congress  regulates  railroad  rates 
(freight  on  commerce)  and  adulteration  of  foods  (character  of 
goods  carried  in  this  commerce).  This  expansion  of  author- 
ity is  essential  to  our  well-being.  The  States  are  no  longer 
competent  to  manage  these  common  interests.  Steam  and 
electricity,  and  our  consequent  intimate  trade  relations,  make 
many  matters  fit  subjects  for  national  control  now  which  were 
better  off  in  the  hands  of  the  States  a  hundred  years  ago. 
It  would  be  better,  no  doubt,  to  give  such  powers  distinctly  to 
the  Federal  government  by  adding  them  to  the  enumeration 
of  powers ;  but  our  Constitution  makes  such  express  amend- 
ment exceedingly  difficult  (§242),  and  so  it  is  fortunate  that 
we  can  meet  new  needs  as  they  arise  by  even  this  dangerous 
process  of  "forced  construction"  at  the  hands  of  Congress  and 
the  Supreme  Court.1 

In  expanding  "  implied  powers,"  two  expressions  in  the  Constitution 
have  been  especially  appealed  to,  —the  "  general  welfare  "  clause,  and 
the  "  necessary  and  proper  "  clause. 


1  "  They  [the  men  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention]  foresaw  that  their  work 
would  need  to  he  elucidated  hy  judicial  commentary;  but  they  were  far  from 
conjecturing  the  enormous  strain  to  which  some  of  their  expressions  would  be 
subjected  in  the  effort  to  apply  them  to  new  facts.  .  .  .    The  Americans  have 


IMPLIED  POWERS  309 

a.  The  words  "to  provide  for  the  general  welfare"  occur  twice, — 
once  in  the  preamble,  once  in  the  first  paragraph,  of  the  enumeration  of 
powers.  In  the  preamble  the  clause  could  not  convey  power ;  and,  more- 
over, in  that  connection,  the  words  are  taken  from  a  similar  passage  in  the 
old  Articles  of  Confederation.  In  the  other  passage  (Art.  I,  sec.  8),  para- 
graphing and  punctuation  show  beyond  reasonable  dispute  that  "  to  .  .  . 
provide  for  the  general  welfare  "  is  not  an  independent  grant  of  power, 
coordinate  with  "to  lay  taxes,"  or  "to  coin  money."  The  infinitive 
"to  .  .  .  provide"  is  not  substantive,  like  these  others,  but  adverbial, 
restricting  the  meaning  of  the  preceding  infinitive  "to  lay  .  .  .  taxes." 

The  English  is  unmistakable  ;  but  the  history  of  the  passage  makes 
this  meaning,  if  possible,  even  more  certain.  Originally,  as  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Detail,  the  passage  *ead  merely,  "  To  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises."  Some  two  weeks  later  (August  22), 
another  committee  suggested  that  this  unlimited  taxing  power  be  restricted 
by  adding  the  words  "for  the  payment  of  the  debts  and  necessary  ex- 
penses of  the  United  States."  This  amendment  became  confused  with  the 
question  of  paying  the  Eevolutionary  debt,  and  was  not  at  that  time 
adopted.  But  opposition  to  a  grant  of  unlimited  power  of  taxation  con- 
tinued to  find  expression  ;  and  the  Committee  on  Style  restored  the 
amendment  as  we  have  it,  altering  the  form  from  a  prepositional  to  an  in- 
finitive phrase.  Plainly,  however,  the  addition  remained  an  adverbial 
modifier  of  restrictive  purpose.  Congress  was  given  power  to  lay  taxes  so 
far  as  needful  in  order  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  government  and  provide  for 
the  general  welfare,  —  so  far,  of  course,  as  powers  elsewhere  given  enable 
it  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare.  As  Justice  Story  well  said  (Com- 
mentaries on  the  Constitution,  I,  §929):  [This  phrase,  to  provide,  etc.] 
"  was  first  brought  forward  in  connection  with  the  taxing  power  ;  it  was 
adopted  as  a  qualification  or  limitation  of  the  objects  of  that  power  ;  and 
it  was  not  discussed  as  an  independent  power.''''  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
also,  in  giving  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Gibbons 
vs.  Ogden  (9  Wheaton,  197)  in  1824,  speaks  of  the  passage  briefly  as  a 
restrictive  modifier  of  the  preceding  infinitive. 

b.  In  "  necessary  .and  proper,"  "necessary"  would  at  first  seem  to  be 
the  stronger  word.  But,  then,  why  is  "proper"  added?  Does  the 
passage  mean  that  a  power  should  not  be  used,  even  if  necessary,  unless 


more  than  once  bent  their  constitution  that  they  might  not  be  forced  to  break 
it."— James  Bryce,  American  Commonwealth,  Part  I,  ch.  xxxiii. 


310  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

also  proper  ?  Or  does  "  necessary  "  mean  merely  convenient  ?  The  latter 
is  a  not  unnatural  conclusion,  and  has  been  adopted  by  the  courts.  With 
this  view,  it  is  possible  to  go  a  long  way  with  "  implied  powers,"  with- 
out straining  any  other  language  of  the  Constitution.  This  vague  or  care- 
less phrase  is  the  true  basis  for  the  growth  of  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers.1 

205.  u  Second  Great  Compromise  "  (Sectional  Jealousies).  —  It 
was  decided  early  that  representation  in  the  lower  House 
should  be  "  proportional "  ;  but  the  Convention  for  a  long  time 
sought  for  a  way  to  take  wealth  into  account  in  fixing  the  pro- 
portion. Finally,  it  was  agreed  that  (in  that  day)  there  was 
no  more  satisfactory  way  of  determining  the  relative  wealth 
of  States  than  by  counting  .their  people.  Accordingly,  it  was 
decided  that  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  should  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  in  proportion  to  population  (Art.  I, 
sec.  1).  This  decision  was  adopted  the  more  readily  because 
it  was  conceded  that  property  would  be  especially  protected 
in  the  upper  House. 

Two  questions  remained  regarding  this  proportion:  (1)  Should 
slaves  be  counted  in  the  population  ?  (2)  Should  the  principle 
of  proportion  apply  to  States  admitted  in  future,  as  well  as  to 
the  original  thirteen? 

a.  Hamilton  and  Madison  had  repeatedly  warned  the  Con- 
vention that  the  g  real  division  of  interests  was  not  between 
large  and  small  States,  but  between  North  and  South.  This 
now  became  apparent  in  one  of  the  hottest  contests  of  the 
four  months.  In  determining  representation,  the  South  wanted 
slaves  to  count  as  men.  Many  Northern  members  were  vehe- 
mently opposed  to  this,  both  because  of  a  rising  sentiment 
against  slavery,  and  because  they  feared  an  undue  weight  for 
the  South  in  Congress.  The  outcome  was  the  "  Second  Great 
Compromise,"  —  the  three  fifths  ratio,  so  that  five  slaves 2  should 

1  Mason  and  Gerry,  almost  alone  (among  the  opponents  of  the  Constitution, 
at  least) ,  seem  to  have  realized  the  possibilities  of  this  phrase.  Cf .  Source 
Book,  No.  162.    For  later  developments,  cf.  §§  222  and  280,  b. 

2  The  Constitution  recognizes  slavery  in  several  passages,  but  it  Carefully 
avoids  using  the  word. 


SECTIONAL  JEALOUSIES  311 

count  equal  to  three  free  persons  in  fixing  the  number  of  Rep- 
resentatives from  a  State.1 

b.  Morris  and  the  New  Englanders  still  struggled  to  prevent  the 
adoption  of  proportional  representation  as  a  permanent  principle.  After 
the  Government  should  once  have  been  instituted,  argued  Morris,  let 
Congress  provide  for  reapportionment  (or  refuse  to  provide  it)  as  it  might 
think  best  from  time  to  time,  without  compulsion  from  the  Constitution. 
His  purpose  (as  he  stated  frankly)  was  to  prevent  any  true  reapportion- 
ment so  far  as  would  concern  new  States  from  the  West.  The  total  rep- 
resentation from  such  States,  it  was  urged  by  several  delegates,  ought 
never  to  exceed  that  from  the  original  thirteen. 

This  unworthy  jealousy  was  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  West  was 
still  regarded  as  an  offshoot  of  the  South,2  and  partly  to  dislike  of  its 
democracy.  "The  new  States  will  know  less  of  the  public  interest," 
said  Morris,  and  "will  not  be  able  to  furnish  men  equally  enlightened." 
Even  in  the  old  States,  he  added,  "the  back  members  [western  mem- 
bers] are  always  the  most  averse  to  the  best  measures ' '  ;  and  he  even 
tried  to  justify  the  pernicious  arrangement  in  colonial  Pennsylvania, 
whereby  the  eastern  section  had  largely  disfranchised  the  western  inhabit- 
ants (§  137). 

The  Virginia  delegation,  influenced  perhaps  by  Virginia's  recent  do- 
minion in  the  West,  stood  forth  as  the  especial  champions  of  that  sec- 
tion. Mason  argued  unanswerably  that  both  justice  and  policy  demanded 
that  new  States  "  be  treated  as  equals,  and  subjected  to  no  degrading 
discriminations.''''  This  view  prevailed.  On  motion  of  Randolph,  the 
Constitution  itself  provided  wisely  for  a  census,  and  consequent  reappor- 
tionment, every  tenth  year.3 


1  A  brief  special  report  may  be  called  for  regarding  a  like  compromise  in 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  as  to  contributions  to  the  Federal  treasury. 
This  will  explain  partly  why  "representation"  and  "direct  taxes"  are 
coupled  in  this  section  of  the  Constitution.  Cf.  also 'debates  in  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  on  the  Articles  of  Confederation  (Source  Book,  No.  146). 

2  Settlement  in  the  Northwest  had  not  yet  begun.  During  this  debate,  the 
Continental  Congress  at  New  York  was  discussing  the  Northwest  Ordinance 
(§  182). 

8  The  Constitution  of  the  German  Empire  leaves  reapportionment  to  the 
central  legislature  (as  Morris  wished  ours  to  do).  As  a  result,  during  the 
forty  years  since  the  establishment  of  the  Empire,  there  has  been  no  reap- 
portionment, although  tremendous  changes  have  taken  place  in  population. 
Cf.  Modern  History,  §§  475,  485.     ' 


CO  w^  '^*>^~ 

312      A^       ^-THE  NEW   CONSTITUTION 

206.  The  "Third  Great  Compromise,"  also,  was  concerned 
with  slavery.  New  England  wished  Congress  to  have  power 
over  commerce,  so  that  it  might  encourage  American  shipping 
against  foreign  competition.  The  South  feared  that  Congress, 
with  this  power,  might  raise  most  of  the  Federal  revenue  by 
taxing  the  great  Southern  exports,  cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco,  — 
or  might  even  prevent  further  importation  of  slaves.1  Finally 
Congress  was  given  power  to  regulate  commerce,  providing, 
however,  (1)  that  it  should  not  tax  exports;  and  (2)  that  it 
should  not  forbid  the  importation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years, — 
though  it  might  impose  a  tax,  not  to  exceed  ten  dollars  a  head, 
upon  such  importation. 

207.  The  Judiciary  has  been  called  fitly  "that  part  of  our 
government  on  which  the  rest  hinges."  It  decides  controversies 
between  States,  and  between  State  and  Nation ;  it  even  over- 
rides Congress;  and  its  life  tenure  makes  it  independent  of 
control.     (See  a,  b,  c.) 

a.  A  final  arbiter  was  needed  somewhere,  in  case  of  conflict 
between  State  and  Nation.  The  Virginia  Plan  gave  the  deci- 
sion to  the  Federal  legislature  (§  202).     The  New  Jersey  Plan 


1  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  felt  that  they  must  have  more  slaves  to  de- 
velop their  rice  swamps,  and  made  it  clear  that  they  would  not  come  into  the 
Union  unless  their  interests  in  this  matter  were  guarded.  Virginia,  Dela- 
ware, and  Maryland  (and  North  Carolina  in  part)  had  already  prohibited  the 
foreign  slave  trade  by  State  laws.  The  most  powerful  advocate  of  national 
prohibition  upon  the  trade  was  George  Mason,  a  great  Virginia  slaveholder. 
Pointing  out  the  futility  of  State  restrictions,  if  the  great  Northwest  was  to 
be  filled  with  slaves  through  the  ports  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  and 
arguing  therefore  that  the  matter  concerned  not  those  States  alone,  he  con- 
tinued: "Slavery  discourages  arts  and  manufactures.  The  poor  despise 
labor  when  performed  by  slaves.  They  prevent  the  immigration  of  "Whites, 
who  really  strengthen  a  country.  They  produce  the  most  pernicious  effect 
on  manners.  Every  master  of  slaves  is  born  a  petty  tyrant.  They  bring  the 
judgment  of  heaven  on  a  country.  As  nations  cannot  be  punished  in  the  next 
world,  they  must  be  in  this."  (See  also  debates  in  Continental  Congress  in 
Source  Booh,  No.  146.  Mason  spoke  with  the  greater  vehemence  because  of 
his  anger  at  Puritan  New  England,  which,  he  believed,  was  striking  an  un- 
holy bargain  with  the  two  Southern  States  in  the  interest  of  its  commerce  and 
of  a  dangerously  centralized  government.    Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  163.) 


THE  JUDICIARY  313 

gave  it  to  the  State  judiciaries.     It  was  finally  placed  in  the 
Federal  judiciary. 

Virginia's  proposal  for  a  Congressional  veto  on  State  legislatures  was 
twice  agreed  to,  but  was  finally  cut  out  after  a  strenuous  debate  (July 
17).  Luther  Martin,  a  small-State  leader,  at  once  moved  to  insert  a  par- 
agraph from  the  New  Jersey  Plan  regarding  the  power  and  duty  of  State 
judiciaries  to  treat  Federal  laws  which  were  in  accord  with  the  Constitu- 
tion as  "the  supreme  law  of  the  respective  States  .  .  .  anything  in  the 
laws  of  the  individual  States  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  This  was 
agreed  to  without  debate.1  Apparently,  it  was  accepted  as  a  substitute 
for  the  defeated  proposition.  It  left  the  final  arbiter  a  branch  of  the 
State  governments. 

But  the  next  day,  when  the  Federal  judiciary  came  up  for  considera- 
tion, Madison  moved  that  its  jurisdiction  should  extend  "to  all  cases 
arising  under  the  national  laws,  and  to  such  other  questions  as  may  in- 
volve the  national  peace  and  harmony.''''  This  likewise  was  accepted 
unanimously.  Either  the  Convention  did  not  see  the  need  for  defining 
more  clearly  the  overlapping  fields  of  State  and  Federal  judiciaries,  or 
the  small-State  and  large-State  forces  did  not  choose  to  measure  strength 
again,  when  the  Connecticut  Compromise  had  just  been  adopted. 

In  this  shape  the  matter  went  to  the  Committee  on  Detail ;  and  that 
Committee  threw  the  weight  into  the  national  scale,  by  a  new  provision 
regarding  appeals.  On  the  Federal  judiciary,  the  Virginia  Plan  and  the 
conclusions  of  the  Convention  so  far  were  vague.  The  Committee's  re- 
port, however,  was  very  detailed,  following,  in  the  main,  the  admirable 
suggestions  of  the  New  Jersey  Plan,2  with  some  extensions.  That  plan 
had  suggested  appeals  from  State  courts,  but  only  in  cases  arising  under 
those  Federal  laivs  which  concerned  taxation  and  commerce  (and  in  cases 
affecting  foreigners  or  foreign  relations) .  In  place  of  so  enumerating  and 
limiting  appeals,  the  Committee's  report  left  the  matter  subject  to  future 
regulation  by  Congress. 

The  Convention  accepted  this  part  of  the  Committee's  report  without 
discussion  —  which  indicates  that  the  State-sovereignty  men  did  not  sus- 
pect that  they  were  so  transferring  the  final  arbiter  from  the  States  to  the 
Federal  government.  Nor  do  the  Nationalists  seem  to  have  at  once  ap- 
preciated their  victory.  Three  weeks  later  (August  23) ,  Pinckney,  Wilson, 
and  Madison  made  one  more  desperate  attempt  to  restore  to  Congress 


1  This  is  the  basis  of  §  2  of  Article  VI  in  the  Constitution. 

2  Article  VI  is  based  closely  upon  this  report,  rather  than  upon  any  preced- 
ing discussions  or  resolutions  of  the  Convention. 


314  THE   NEW  CONSTITUTION 

its  veto  upon  the  States,  on  the  ground  that  without  such  power  the 
Federal  government  could  not  defend  itself  against  State  encroachment. 
Said  Wilson,  "  This  is  the  keystone  wanted  to  complete  the  wide  arch  of 
government  we  are  raising."  The  motion  was  defeated,  six  States  to 
five,  by  about  the  usual  division  between  large  and  small-State  parties. 

But  the  "keystone  "  had  already  been  inserted.  True,  the  provision 
regarding  this  appellate  power  of  the  judiciary  was  worthless  without  sub- 
sequent action  by  Congress.  That  body  might  have  given  narrow  limits 
to  appellate  jurisdiction.  But  the  First  Congress  did  extend  it  in  the 
most  sweeping  way  possible,  so  as  to  include  every  case  in  which  any 
authority  of  the  Federal  Government  might  be  questioned  (§217). 

This  law  has  been  sometimes  threatened,  but  has  never  been  repealed. 
To  it,  directly,  is  due  the  magnified  position  of  the  Federal  judiciary. 
The  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  permits  the  law  was  "the  sleeping 
lion  of  the  Constitution."  Its  importance  seems  not  to  have  been  fully 
understood  at  the  time,  even  in  the  Convention.  Had  its  bearing  been 
comprehended  by  the  people  of  the  country,  the  Constitution  would  al- 
most certainly  have  failed  of  ratification  (§  211). 

b.  The  power  to  void  an  Act  of  Coyigress  is  not  derived  from 
any  express  provision  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  based  upon 
judicial  custom  in  England  and  America.  In  conflicts  between 
king  and  parliament,  or  between  king  and  the  Common  Law, 
English  courts  had  sometimes  claimed  the  right  to  say  which  of 
the  conflicting  authorities  should  prevail  (some  half  dozen 
times  in  several  centuries)  ;  but  this  rare  power  of  the  English 
judiciary  had  already  virtually  disappeared,  because  the  Eng- 
lish Revolution  of  1688  had  removed  practically  all  possibility 
of  such  conflicts.  Throughout  colonial  times,  however,  the 
English  privy  council,  acting  as  a  court  of  appeal,  had  voided 
Acts  of  colonial  legislatures  which  it  regarded  as  conflicting 
with  colonial  charters  or  with  English  laws  (§  118  (5),  note). 
As  soon  as  the  colonies  became  States,  the  State  courts  followed 
a  corresponding  custom  and  assumed  the  right  to  decide  be- 
tween State  legislation  and  more  fundamental  law  (a  State  con- 
stitution, or  an  ancient  principle  of  the  Common  law).  Such 
cases,  however,  had  been  very  rare  ; 1  and  outside  the  lawyer 

1  In  New  Jersey,  in  1780,  the  highest  court  declared  an  act  of  the  legislature 
void  because  inconsistent  with  the  State  Constitution  (cf.  "  Holmes  vs.  Wal- 


THE  JUDICIARY  315 

class,  the  people  resented  the  practice  bitterly. 1  Even  within 
the  Convention,  some  members  disliked  the  practice ;  but  it 
was  seen  clearly  there  that  the  Federal  courts  would  test 
Federal  legislation  by  comparing  it  with  the  Constitution,  and 
would  void  such  acts  as  were  "  plainly  "  unconstitutional.  No 
provision  to  give  the  courts  that  power  was  inserted,  because 
none  was  thought  needful. 

Since  that  time,  however,  the  power  has  been  extended,  both  by  Federal 
and  State  courts,  to  a  degree  undreamed  in  1787  by  its  most  ardent  champions. 
Especially  has  this  been  true  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  which,  be- 
cause of  its  life  tenure,2  has  been  more  independent  of  public  opinion 
than  State  courts  have  been.  Through  this  development,  the  Supreme 
Court  has  become  not  merely  the  "  guardian  "  of  the  Constitution,  but  also 
the  chief  "  amender  "  of  the  Constitution.  It  has  vastly  augmented  the  field 
of  national  authority,  by  approving  as  "constitutional"  new  powers 
assumed  by  Congress  or  President ;  and  again  it  has  sometimes  seriously 
limited  that  field  by  declaring  unconstitutional  certain  laws  which  seemed 
to  it  likely  to  interfere  with  "vested  interests." 

c.  Life  tenure.  Hamilton  and  his  group  failed  to  secure 
life  tenure  for  the  executive  and  the  Senate ;  but  they  did 
secure  it  for  the  more  important  judiciary.  In  early  English 
history,  the  judges  had  been  removable  at  the  king's  pleasure. 


ton"  in  Amer.  Hist.  Review,  IV,  456  ff.),  and  three  of  the  New  Jersey  dele- 
gates at  Philadelphia  had  been  connected  with  the  case,  on  the  bench  or  as 
counsel.  There  was  a  like  decision  in  Virginia  in  1782,  and  an  opinion  to  the 
same  effect  from  the  North  Carolina  court  just  as  the  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion was  gathering.  The  Khode  Island  case  has  been  described  (§191).  These 
seem  to  be  the  only  instances  from  1776  to  1787.  But  In  one  year  recently 
(1906)  101  State  laws  were  declared  unconstitutional  by  supreme  courts,  State 
or  Federal,  and  the  total  number  of  cases  for  the  seven  years  1902-1908  was  468. 

*For  a  striking  illustration  at  a  somewhat  later  time,  see  Baldwin,  The 
American  Judiciary,  112. 

2  This  peculiar  American  power  of  the  courts  is  not  a  necessary  accompani- 
ment of  a  written  constitution.  It  is  not  found  in  any  of  the  European  repub- 
lics with  written  constitutions.  In  Switzerland  and  France,  the  legislature 
is  the  sole  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts ;  and  public  opinion 
can  therefore  secure  more  immediate  action  than  with  us. 


316  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

The  Stuart  tyrants  abused  this  power  to  debase  the  courts  into 
servile  tools.  Therefore,  the  English  Revolution  provided 
that  thereafter  judges  should  be  removed  only  "  on  address" 
That  is,  a  judge  held  for  life,  unless  two  thirds  of  parliament 
voted  that  he  should  be  removed.  For  such  action,  however, 
no  formal  trial  was  necessary,  nor  even  formal  charges  of  wrong- 
doing. English  courts  were  made  dependent  upon  the  approval 
of  parliament.  * 

In  the  State  constitutions,  so  far,  the  judges  usually  had  been 
"appointive  (§  153).  If  for  long  terms,  then  commonly  they 
were  removable  "  on  address,"  as  in  England.  But  the  Federal 
Constitution  (like  some  State  constitutions)  gave  the  courts  a 
tenure  more  independent  than  had  ever  been  known  in  England. 
Federal  judges  hold  "  during  good  behavior,"  and  can  be  re- 
moved only  by  impeachment,  —  i.e.,  conviction  for  "treason, 
bribery,  or  other  high  crime  or  misdemeanor"  by  a  two-thirds 
vote  of  the  Senate,  after  legal  trial  upon  specific  charges.  With- 
out affording  any  opening  for  such  charges,  the  judiciary  may 
thwart  the  popular  will  and  the  will  of  every  other  branch  of 
the  government  for  years.1 

In  the  Federalist,  Hamilton  argued  that  in  giving  judges  tenure  for  life, 
the  Constitution  merely  followed  the  laudable  practice  of  England,  whose 
courts  were  recognized  as  models  for  learning  and  impartiality.  This 
argument  took  no  account  of  the  tremendous  difference  between  removal 
"  on  address  "  and  removal  only  on  "impeachment."  In  England  the 
courts  had  been  made  independent  of  the  irresponsible  monarch,  but  only 
by  bringing  them  into  close  dependence  upon  the  popular  branch  of  the 
government.  In  America,  as  Jefferson  said,  "we  have  made  them  in- 
dependent of  the  nation  itself."  Moreover,  even  if  the  English  courts 
had  been  independent  of  the  nation,  it  would  have  mattered  less,  because 
of  their  more  limited  functions.  The  boundless  significance  of  the 
American  arrangement  lies  in  the  combination  of  exemption  from  popular 
control  with  the  vast  powers  treated  in  a  and  b  above.2 


1  Can  the  student  find  in  the  Constitution  whether  Congress  can  lower  the 
salaries  of  judges  of  whom  it  may  disapprove? 

2  When  Jefferson,  in  Paris,  learned  of  Madison's  plan  for  a  Congressional 
veto  on  State  legislation,  he  wrote  advising  instead  the  Federal  judicial  veto 


UNDEMOCRATIC   FEATURES  317 

In  simple  fact,  it  has  sometimes  taken  twenty  years  to  change  a  majority 
of  the  Supreme  Court  by  new  appointments.1  Certainly  it  is  contrary  to 
all  principles  of  democracy  that,  even  conceivably,  a  whole 'generation 
should  be  unable  to  control  or  change  "  that  part  of  the  government  upon 
which  all  the  rest  hinges."  To-day  it  is  as  probable  that  some  reconstitu- 
tion  of  this  part  of  the  people's  government  will  become  a  political  issue, 
as  it  was  probable  twenty  years  ago  in  England  that  a  like  question  would 
arise  for  the  House  of  Lords.2 

Says  Professor  Channing  {Jeffersonian  System,  112):  "Perhaps 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  more  extraordinary 
than  the  failure  of  that  instrument  to  provide  any  means  for  getting  rid 
of  the  judges  of  the  Federal  courts  except  by  process  of  impeachment." 
And  says  a  foreign  scholar  more  at  length  (Boutmy,  Constitutional  Law, 
117)  :  "  This  power  [the  Supreme  Court]  has  the  last  word  in  the  number- 
less questions  which  come  under  its  jurisdiction.  The  sovereign  people 
after  a  time  conquers  other  powers,  but  this  Court  almost  always  remains 
beyond  its  reach.  For  more  than  twenty  or  even  thirty  years  ...  it 
may  misuse  its  authority  with  impunity,  may  practically  invalidate  a  law 
voted  by  all  the  other  powers,  or  a  policy  unanimously  accepted  by  public 
opinion.  ...  I  do  not  know  of  any  more  striking  political  paradox  than 
this  supremacy  of  a  non-elected  power  [which  the  same  writer  styles  "a 
smau^oligarchy  of  nine  irremovable  judges  "]  in  a  democracy  reputed  to 
the  extreme  type."  3 

208.  Three  other  undemocratic  features  of  the  Constitution4 
need  brief  treatment. 


which  was  finally  adopted  —  except,  as  he  makes  clear,  that  he  expected  the 
courts  to  remain  dependent  upon  the  popular  will  through  Congress,  accord- 
ing to  the  American  and  English  practice  of  the  time  (Letter  of  June  20,  1787, 
to  Madison).  This  suggestion,  therefore,  was  in  no  way  inconsistent  with 
Jefferson's  later  stringent  criticism  of  the  Federal  courts  and  their  power. 

1  Some  limitations  and  threatened  limitations  upon  the  impunity  of  the 
courts  have  occurred,  in  later  history,  in  times  of  great  popular  excitement 
(§§  218,  240,  256-257,  353,  and  390). 

2  Since  this  passage  was  written,  Theodore  Roosevelt  has  suggested  (1912) 
that  whenever  the  Supreme  Court  declares  a  Congressional  law  unconstitu- 
tional, a  referendum  be  provided  to  the  people. 

8  An  extended  and  striking  treatment  of  the  Federal  judiciary  may  be 
found  in  a  recent  work  by  an  American  scholar,  —  J.  Allen  Smith's  Spirit 
of  American  Government,  ch.  v. 

4  The  indirect  election  of  the  Senate  and  its  avowed  undemocratic  purpose 
have  been  dealt  with  (§  200  and  close  of  §  203),  and  the  indirect  election  and 


318  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

a.  Indirect  election  of  the  President.  The  men  of  the  Con- 
vention meant  to  establish  a  true  electoral  college.  They 
thought  they  had  done  so  5  and  they  prided  themselves  partic- 
ularly upon  this  part  of  their  work.  They  supposed  there 
would  be  chosen  in  each  State l  a,  select  body  of  men,  of  social 
standing  and  property,  and  that  these  several  bodies  would  then 
deliberate  calmly  and  use  their  best  judgment  in  selecting  a 
chief  executive. 

Here  the  Convention  failed  utterly.  The  growth  of  senti- 
ment for  popular  government,  together  with  the  development  of  a 
party  system  and  preliminary  nomi?iations,  has  made  the  electo- 
ral college  obsolete  except  in  form.  The  form,  indeed,  survives. 
Technically  each  "  elector "  is  still  at  liberty,  after  his  elec- 
tion, to  vote  his  private  choice  for  President  and  to  change  his 
mind,  before  voting,  as  often  as  he  likes.  But,  in  reality,  each 
"  elector  "  is  chosen  to  vote  for  a  particular  candidate ;  and  un- 
written law  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  think  of  doing 
otherwise.  The  "  electors  "  have  been  transformed  into  "  mere 
letter  carriers."  Indeed,  the  voter  rarely  reads  their  names  on 
the  tickets.2 

b.  "  Checks  and  balances.,'>  In  England,  before  the  year  1400, 
centuries  of  struggle  against  an  irresponsible  monarchy  had 
built  into  the  "  constitution  "  a  system  of  reciprocal  checks. 
No  one  part  of  the  government  —  king,  lords,  or  commons  — 
could  do  anything  of  consequence  against  the  determined  op- 
position of  any  other  part.     This  elaborate  system  of  balances 


life  tenure  of  the  judiciary  (§207).  One  other  like  feature  —  the  undue 
difficulty  of  amendment  —  has  been  briefly  referred  to,  and  will  be  treated 
more  fully  in  §  242. 

1  The  Constitution  leaves  the  method  of  appointing  "  electors  "  to  the  State 
legislatures.  It  was  expected  that  those  bodies  themselves  would  commonly 
appoint,  —  and  that  thus  we  should  have  popular  inclinations  "  refined  by  two 
successive  filtrations."  In  the  first  election,  indeed,  several  States  did  so 
choose  their  "  electors  "  (§  212),  and  some  continued  the  practice  for  many 
years,  —  South  Carolina  until  1860  (§  295). 

2  A  somewhat  similar  evasion  of  the  Constitution  is  now  (1912)  going  on  in 
the  election  of  senators  (§  467) . 


UNDEMOCRATl^\REATURES 


had  been  a  victory  for  freedom,  so  far  as  it  went ;  and  it  came 
to  be  looked  upon  as  a  necessary  feature  of  free  government. 
After  the  publication  of  Blackstone's  law  writings  (1770),  the 
"separation  of  powers"  (i.e.  the  reciprocal  independence  of 
executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  departments)  became  almost 
an  axiom  in  English  political  thought.1 

In  reality,  however,  as  we  can  now  see,  English  practice  by 
1787  was  already  a  century  ahead  of  the  doctrine.  The  Revolu- 
tion of  1688  had  made  the  popular  branch  of  the  government 
suj3reme_>_ except  for  a  modified  veto  by  the  Lords.  Thus, 
the  system  of  "  checks  ,and  balances  "  had  practically  disap- 
peared in  England  (in  favor  of  a  truer  democracy),  when  it  was 
adopted,  in  most  elaborate  form,  in  America.  Moreover,  ivhile 
in  England  it  had  been  originally  devised  as  a  protection  against 
an  arbitrary  monarch,  it  was  adopted  in  America  mainly  as  a 
protection  against  a  "  turbulent  people." 2 

The  system  reversed  the  general  tendency  in  the  early  State  constitu- 
tions, which  had  inclined  toward  supremacy  by  the  popular  branch  of  the 
government  (§  153  ff.).  It  must  be  added,  however,  that  the  adoption  of 
this  plan  of  checks  was  generally  welcomed  by  extreme  democrats  at  the 
time,  because  to  them  democracy  was  still  largely  synonymous  with  dis- 
trust of  government  (§  70).  Accordingly,  they  favored  any  arrangement 
which  should  keep  it  from  governing.  The  result  was  an  arrangement 
which  may  well  be  praised  for  having  at  times  conduced  to  stability,  but 

1  Nearly  two  thousand  years  before,  Aristotle  had  argued  for  such  a  "  sep- 
aration," as  a  defense  against  tyranny.  In  1748,  the  French  writer,  Montes- 
quieu, in  The  Spirit  of  Laws,  gave  the  doctrine  wide  popularity.  For  a 
curious  attempt  to  apply  the  principle  in  France,  cf.  Modern  History,  §  357. 

2  Madison  was  the  most  prominent  advocate  of  the  system  of  "checks." 
He  desired  to  prevent  one  part  of  the  government  from  encroaching  upon  an- 
other; but  fundamentally  it  was  democracy  which  he  sought  to  "check." 
Said  he,  "  It  is  against  the  enterprising  ambition  of  this  department  [the  rep- 
resentative] that  the  people  ought  to  indulge  all  their  jealousy  and  exhaust 
all  their  precautions."  Federalist,  No.  48.  Lecky  (Democracy  and  Liberty, 
I,  9)  describes  this  system  of  checks  in  the  American  Constitution  as  designed 
"  to  divide  and  restrict  power,  to  secure  property,  to  check  appetite  for 
organic  change,  to  guard  individual  liberty  against  the  tyranny  of  the  mul- 
titude." The  same  critic  calls  all  these  devices  "  substitutes  "  for  the  desired 
but  unattainable  monarchy  and  aristocracy. 


320  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

which  also  has  often  produced  embarrassing  and  harmful  deadlocks. 
When  the  people,  after  a  long  campaign,  have  deliberately  chosen  a  House 
of  Representatives  to  carry  out  their  settled  policy,  they  often  have  to 
wait  two  years  to  get  around  a  Presidential  veto,  and  perhaps  two  years 
or  four  years  more  before  they  have  a  chance  to  change  a  hostile  hold- 
over majority  in  the  Senate.  Even  then,  a  Supreme  Court,  by  a  vote 
perhaps  of  five  to  four,  may  nullify  the  popular  will  for  a  generation 
longer.  And  all  this  says  nothing  of  the  almost  insuperable  difficulty  of 
amending  the  Constitution  itself,  when  the  nation  may  wish  to  change 
some  provision  in  that  ancient  document  devised  by  men  of  other  times 
and  designed  for  other  conditions  than  those  of  our  day. 

c.  Special  protection  for  property  rather  tha?i  for  men.  Re- 
peatedly the  Convention  refused  to  entertain  a  motion  for  a 
bill  of  rights  for  men  ;  *  but,  besides  the  guardianship  expected 
from  Senate,  President,  and  Supreme  Court,  there  were  in- 
serted two  express  provisions  to  shield  property.  (1)  Even  the 
Federal  government  can  take  private  property  only  "by  due 
process  of  law,"  —  i.e.  through  the  decision  of  a  court  after 
judicial  trial ;  and  (2)  the  States  are  forbidden  to  pass  any  law 
"  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  By  reason  of  these 
clauses,  says  President  Hadley,  property  interests  in  America 
are  "  in  a  stronger  position  against  any  attempt  at  government 
control "  than  they  are  in  any  European  country.2 

President  Hadley  points  out  that  the  first  provision  has  re- 
sulted "  in  preventing  a  majority  of  the  voters,  acting  in  the 
legislature  or  through  the  courts  (the  convenient  European 
j  ^methods)  from  disturbing  existing  arrangements  with  regard 
to  railroad  building  or  factory  operation,  until  the  stockholders 

_ 

1  Articles  IV  and  VI  of  the  Constitution,  it  is  true,  do  contain  some  essential 

t>    v, .'    provisions  of  a  bill  of  rights,  —  the  strict  definition  of  treason  as  compared 

with  the  meaning  of  that  term  in  many  other  countries;   the  prohibition 

against  ex  post  facto  laws  and  bills  of  attainder  (cf.  §  159,  note) ;  and  the 

^  restriction  upon  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.     Part  of  the  Con- 

vention thought  that  such  matters  pertained  only  to  State  governments.   There 
did  remain,  however,  a  serious  want  in   this  respect  until  the  adoption  of 
the  first  ten  amendments  (§  216). 
2  Arthur  T.  Hadley  (President  of  Yale  University),  "The  Constitutional 
Position  of  Property  in  America,"  in  The  Independent,  April  16,  1908. 


UNDEMOCRATIC   FEATURES  321 

or  owners  have  had  opportunity  to  have  the  case  tried  in  the 
courts";  and,  as  the  same  article  intimates,  the  courts  have 
usually  been  inclined  to  favor  vested  property  interests. 
President  Hadley  asserts  also  that  in  the  Convention  "  no  man 
foresaw"  this  result  from  the  clause;  but  careful  students  of 
the  period  must  admit,  that,  fully  foreseen  or  not,  the  result 
was  at  least  in  line  with  the  desires  of  the  Convention. 

The  even  more  pernicious  results  of  the  second  provision 
could  not  well  have  been  foreseen.  They  have  come  about 
through  a  remarkable  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  (the 
Dartmouth  College  Case,  1819;  cf.  §  280,  c),  extending  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "contract"  to  include  even  the  grants 
of  privilege  and  power  made  by  a  State  itself  to  public- 
service  corporations.  As  a  consequence,  many  such  cor- 
porations have  been  inviolably  intrenched,  for  an  indefinite 
period 1  in  the  future,  in  special  privileges  which  they  secured 
from  careless  or  corrupt  legislatures  and  for  which  they  render 
no  adequate  return  to  society,  —  to  the  grievous  burden  of  tax- 
payers tind  to  the  prevention  of  needed  reforms.  In  the  hun- 
dred years  from  1803  to  1903,  the  Supreme  Court  declared 
unconstitutional  two  hundred  State  laws :  fifty-seven  of  ;these 
were  voided  on  the  ground  that  they  impaired  the  obligation 
of  some  "contract."  Most  of  these  fifty-seven  (ami  many 
more  of  the  two  hundred,  voided  on  other  grounds)  had 'aimed 
solely  at  needful  regulation  of  great  corporations  in  the  interest 
of  social  well-being,  —  such  legislation  as  is  common  in  Euro- 
pean democracies  like  England  or  France  or  Switzerland. 
+■ 

1  According  to  the  spirit  of  this  decision,  unless  the  State  has  limited  the 
lifetime  of  a  grant,  or  has  expressly  reserved  its  own  right  to  change  the  grant 
at  will,  the  grant  runs  forever.  In  recent  years,  the  States  have  in  great 
measure  guarded  themselves  against  such  danger  for  the  future  by  expressly 
reserving  their  right  to  modify  all  such  grants.  An  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution of  Wisconsin  runs:  "  All  acts  [dealing  with  corporations]  may  be 
altered  and  repealed  by  the  legislature  at  any  time:'  This  provision,  now,  is  a 
part  of  the  "  contract  "  when  the  Wisconsin  legislature  grants  a  franchise  to 
any  corporation. 


U 


THE  NEW    CONSTITUTION 


209.  The  Federal  Franchise.  —  No  doubt  the  Convention 
would  have  put  forth  a  more  aristocratic  document  but  for  two 
things.  (1)  The  Nationalists  feared  the  State  governments 
more  than  they  feared  the  people  of  the  States ;  and,  some- 
times, it  was  practically  necessary  to  intrust  power  to  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two.  (2)  If  the  Constitution  were  clearly 
and  decidedly  more  undemocratic  than  a  given  State  constitu- 
tion, it  would  be  hard  to  secure  ratification  in  that  State,  —  and 
it  was  not  going  to  be  easy  to  get  States  enough  at  best.  We 
owe  such  democratic  character  as  the  Constitution  has,  in  great 
degree,  to  the  relatively  unknown  men,  who,  ten  years  before, 
had  framed  the  Revolutionary  State  constitutions. 

A  good  illustration  of  all  this  is  seen  in  the  settlement  regarding  the 
Federal  franchise.  The  only  part  of  the  government  left  to  be  chosen 
directly  by  the  people  was  the  House  of  Representatives  ;  and,  ap- 
parently, only  the  first  cause  mentioned  above  prevented  this  choice  also 
being  intrusted  to  the  State  legislatur^  Then  the  second  cause  saved 
us  from  a  rigid  limitation  of  the  Federal  franchise.  When  it  had  been 
decided  to  leave  the  matter  to  "the  people,"  the  question  arose,  who 
were  "the  people"  in  this  political  sense.  Hamilton,  Morris,  and  Dick- 
inson strove  earnestly  to  limit  the  franchise  to  freeholders,  —  so  as  to 
exclude  "those  multitudes  without  property  and  without  principle,  with 
whom  our  country,  like  all  others,  will,  in  time,  abound."1  Even 
Madison  expressed  himself  cautiously  as  theoretically  in  favor  of  such 
restriction,  fearing  that  a  propertyless  majority  would  either  plunder  the 
rich  or  become  the  tools  of  an  aristocracy.  Franklin  argued  vigorously 
against  the  restriction,  urging  the  educational  value  of  the  franchise 
for  the  masses ;  and  George  Mason,  in  the  language  of  his  bill  of 
rights  of  1776,  declared,  "  The  true  idea  is  that  every  man  having  evi- 
dence of  attachment  to  the  community,  and  permanent  common  interest 
with  it,  ought  to  share  in  all  its  rights  and  privileges."2  But  the  defeat 
of  the  proposed  restriction,  it  is  plain,  was  due  not  to  these  lonely  cham- 
pions, but  to  the  reminder  that  in  more  than  half  the  States  the  State 
franchise  was  already  wider  than  landholding,  and  that  no  one  holding 
the  franchise  in  his  own  State  could  be  expected  to  vote  for  a  Constitution 


1  These  words  are  Dickinson's,  but  the  sentiment  was  general. 
2Cf.  §  154,  and  Source  Book,  No.  136,  and  comment. 


RATIFICATION  323 

that  would  disfranchise  him  in  the  Federal  government. *  The  provision 
finally  adopted,  therefore,  aimed  to  keep  the  franchise  as  restricted  as  was 
compatible  with  probable  ratification.  The  Federal  franchise  was  to  be 
no  wider  in  any  State  than  the  State  franchise  in  that  State. 

In  the  outcome,  this  arrangement  has  worked  for  democracy.  The 
States,  acting  one  by  one,  modified  their  constitutions  in  the  direction  of 
greater  democracy  faster  than  one  great  unit  like  the  Nation  could  have 
done  ;  and  as  any  State  extended  its  own  franchise,  so  far  it  extended  also 
the  Federal  franchise  (cf.  §  284). 

210.  Ratification.  —  The  "  two  critical  decisions  "  of  the  Con- 
vention, it  has  been  said,  were :  (1)  to  substitute  a  new  plan  of 
government,  —  instead  of  trying  merely  to  "patch  up"  the  old 
constitution  ;  and  (2)  to  put  that  new  government  into  operation 
ivhen  it  should  be  accepted  by  nine  States,  without  waiting  for  all 
of  them. 

The  last  decision  was  directly  contrary  to  instructions 
from  the  State  legislatures  which  had  appointed  the  delegates. 
Of  course  it  was  also  in  conflict  with  a  specific  provision  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  —  to  which  the  States  had  solemnly 
pledged  "  their  sacred  faith  "  (§  196).  But  men  had  come  to 
see  that  America  must  either  remain  passive,  slowly  strangling 
in  the  grip  of  the  old  constitution,  or  she  must  break  its  bonds. 
Constitutional  remedy,  it  had  been  demonstrated,  was  im- 
possible. Wisely  and  patriotically,  the  Convention  recom- 
mended, and  the  country  adopted,  an  unconstitutional  remedy. 
The  ratification  of  the  Constitution  was  a  peaceful  revolution.2 


1  The  voters  in  the  States  were  not  to  vote  directly,  it  is  true,  in  ratifying 
or  rejecting  the  Constitution ;  but  they  were  to  choose  conventions  for  the  ex- 
press purpose,  and,  commonly,  they  would  pledge  their  delegates  more  or  less 
definitely. 

2  This  was  freely  admitted.     A  friendly  looker-on  wrote :  — 
"Here,  too,  I  saw  some  pretty  shows:  a  revolution  without  blows  : 

For,  as  I  understood  the  cunning  elves,  the  people  all  revolted  from  them- 
selves." 
In  a  different  tone,  the  States  which,  at  first,  refused  to  ratify  the  new  govern- 
ment, reproached  the  majority  bitterly  for  "seceding"   unconstitutionally 
from  the  old  Confederation. 


324  THE   NEW  CONSTITUTION 

This  method  of  establishing  the  new  government  without  waiting  for  all 
the  States  was  first  suggested  in  the  Convention x  on  June  5  by  James 
Wilson  ;  and  Pinckney  at  once  mentioned  nine  States  as  sufficient.  Seven 
weeks  later,  Gorham  recurred  briefly  to  this  idea.  On  neither  occasion, 
however,  was  there  any  debate  or  even  a  motion.  The  revolutionary  sug- 
gestion came  first  before  the  Convention  formally  in  a  provision  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  Detail :  ' '  The  ratification  of  the  Conventions  of 
.  .  .  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  organizing  this  Constitution."  This 
part  of  the  Committee's  report  was  under  discussion  on  August  30-31, 
and  the  blank  was  finally  filled  with  "nine."  Then  Madison  and  King 
objected  to  the  vague  wording,  which  might  imply  that  States  which  had 
not  themselves  ratified  were  still  to  be  bound  by  the  action  of  nine  others  ; 
and,  "in  order  to  confine  the  operation  of  the  government  to  the  States 
ratifying,''''  says  Madison,  an  amendment  added  the  words  "between  the 
said  States."  With  slight  change  of  wording  by  the  Committee  on  Style 
and  with  no  change  of  meaning,  this  provision  is  found  in  Article  VII  of 
the  Constitution. 

In  all  the  discussion,  no  one  suggested  that  the  Constitution  ought  to 
bind  any  State  which  did  not  itself  accept  it.  Indeed,  Wilson,  strongest 
of  centralizers,  thought  even  King's  amendment  unnecessary,  because,  he 
argued,  it  was  impossible  to  think  that  the  first  form  would  bind  a  State 
without  its  own  consent. 

When  Congress  received  the  Constitution,  it  expressed  nei- 
ther approval  nor  disapproval ;  but  it  did  approve  the  method 
provided  for  taking  the  sense  of  the  States,  and  accordingly 
it  recommended  the  State  legislatures  to  call  State  conven- 
tions. Now  the  contest  was  transferred  from  Philadelphia  to 
the  country  at  large,  and  in  every  State  men  divided  into 
parties.  The  advocates  of  the  "  new  roof  "  shrewdly  took  to 
themselves  the  name  Federalists,2  instead  of   the  unpopular 

1  Such  a  method  was  first  suggested,  so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  by  Stephen 
Higginson  of  Massachusetts  in  a  letter  to  General  Knox,  February  8,  1787. 
Higginson  argues  ingeniously  to  prove  that  such  ratification  might  be  con- 
sidered constitutional.     (Amer.  Hist.  Association  Report  for  1896,  I,  748  ff.) 

2  Luther  Martin  of  Maryland  was  one  of  the  delegates  who  withdrew  from 
the  Philadelphia  Convention  toward  its  close.  In  a  letter  to  his  legislature, 
justifying  his  action,  he  explains  that  the  Convention  had  voted  down  a  reso- 
lution for  a  "  federal"  form  of  government  and  instead  had  adopted  a  reso- 
lution for  a  "  national  government."  "  Afterwards  the  word  '  national '  was 
struck  out  by  them,  because  they  thought  the  word  might  tend  to  alarm;  and 


RATIFICATION  325 

term  Nationalists,  and  so  left  to  their  opponents  only  the 
weak  appellation  Antifederalists.  A  torrent  of  pamphlets  and 
newspaper  articles  issued  from  the  press,1  and  every  cross- 
roads was  a  stage  for  vehement  oratory.  A  strenuous  nine- 
months'  campaign  gave  a  bare  victory  for  the  Constitution. 

[For  general  impression  only.'] 

In  public  discussion,  as  in  the  ratifying  conventions,  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution was  attacked  partly  for  its  encroachments  on  the  States,  partly 
for  fanciful  reasons,  hut  chiefly  for  its  undemocratic  features.  Oppo- 
nents pointed  to  the  absence  of  a  bill  of  rights,  —  especially  to  the  lack  of 
guarantee  for  jury  trial  in  Federal  courts, —  and  to  the  infrequency  of  elec- 
tions, and  to  the  vast  powers  of  the  President  and  Senate  (parts  of  the 
government  remote  from  popular  control). 

The  real  source  of  apprehension,  however,  was  not  any  specific  pro- 
vision in  the  document  so  much  as  a  vague  distrust  of  the  aristocratic 
Convention  .2  This  suspicion  was  intensified  by  the  secrecy  with  which 
that  body  had  surrounded  its  deliberations  ;  and  many  people  believed 
sincerely  that  the  meeting  at  Philadelphia  had  been  "as  deep  and  dark 
a  conspiracy  against  the  liberties  of  a  free  people  "  as  had  ever  been  con- 
ceived in  the  darkest  ages.  In  the  closing  days  of  the  Convention,  Mason 
had  asserted  that  such  a  constitution  "  must  end  either  in  monarchy  or 
tyrannical  aristocracy."  Soon,  popular  pamphlets  exaggerated  this  view. 
An  ironical  democrat,  claiming  to  be  a  "  Turk,"  praised  the  Constitution 
for  "its  resemblance  to  our  much-admired  Sublime  Porte,"  with  detailed 
parallels;  and  "John  Humble"  exhorted  his  fellow  "low-born"  ("all 
but  some  six  hundred  of  the  inhabitants  of  America  ")  dutifully  to  allow 
the  few  "well-born"2  to  set  up  their  "Divine  Constitution"  and  rule 
the  country. 


although  now  they  who  advocate  this  system  pretend  to  call  themselves  fed- 
eralists, in  Convention  the  distinction  was  quite  the  reverse.  Those  who 
opposed  the  system  were  there  considered  and  styled  the  federal  party ,  those 
who  advocated  it,  the  antifederal." —  Elliot's  Debates,  I,  362. 

1  The  most  famous  collection  of  such  essays  is  the  long  series  which  ap- 
peared week  after  week  in  New  York  papers  under  the  title  The  Federalist. 
They  were  written  by  Hamilton,  Madison,  and  Jay,  and  were  soon  republished 
in  book  form.    They  remain  the  most  famous  commentary  on  the  Constitution. 

2  Cf.  Source  Book,  No.  100,  for  the  large  proportion  of  delegates  of  Phila- 
delphia who  seem  to  have  had  little  special  qualification  except  that  they  were 
"  gentlemen  of  good  birth  and  large  fortune."     And  cf.  also  No.  152. 


326  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

Still  both  parties  had  to  admit  the  seriousness  of  the  existing  situa- 
tion. The  Antifederalists  had  no  remedy  to  propose.  The  Federalists 
offered  one  for  which  they  claimed  no  peculiar  excellence,  but  which,  they 
urged,  did  offer  escape  from  anarchy,  —  probably  the  only  escape  likely 
to  be  available.  Under  such  pressure,  and  a  sense  of  personal  responsi- 
bility if  he  rejected  a  possible  cure  for  his  country's  ills,  many  a  flaming 
Antifederalist,  elected  to  a  State  convention  expressly  to  reject  the  Con- 
stitution, came  over  to  its  support.1 

Nor  did  the  conventions  realize  the  nationalizing  character  of  the 
Constitution.  Says  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  {Daniel  Webster,  176),  —  practi- 
cal statesman  and  strong  centralizer  as  he  is,  —  "  When  the  Constitution 
was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  States  at  Philadelphia,  and  accepted  by  the 
votes  of  States  in  popular  conventions,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  was  not 
a  man  in  the  country,  from  Washington  and  Hamilton  on  the  one  side  to 
George  Clinton  and  George  Mason  on  the  other,  who  regarded  the  new 
system  as  anything  but  an  experiment,  entered  upon  by  the  States,  and 
from  which  each  and  every  State  had  the  right  peaceably  to  withdraw — a 
right  very  likely  to  be  exercised." 

This,  no  doubt,  is  an  overstatement.  It  expresses  the  general  opinion 
of  the  day  ;  but  men  like  James  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania  certainly  held 
stronger  views  of  the  national  character  of  the  new  government.  William 
McDonald's  more  moderate  statement  (Jacksonian  Democracy,  "Ameri- 
can Nation"  series,  107)  is  well  within  the  truth  :  "  Had  it  been  gener- 
ally understood  that  the  Federal  government,  once  established,  would  be 
beyond  control  of  the  States  save  by  the  prescribed  process  of  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  or  that  the  Federal  judiciary  was  to  be  the  final  inter- 
preter of  the  Constitution  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  the  '  new  roof '  would  have  been  accepted  at  all."     (Cf.  §  211.) 

[Details  for  later  reference.] 

The  Constitution  was  sent  forth  September  17,  1787.  Or- 
ganized and  ready,  the  Federalists  at  first  carried  all  before  them, 
securing  ratification  during  December  and  January  in  Dela- 
ware, New  Jersey,  Georgia,  Connecticut,  and,  after  a  bitter 
struggle,   in  Pennsylvania.     Somewhat    later,  Maryland  and 

1  More  personal  arguments  were  not  neglected.  In  Massachusetts  the  Fed- 
eralists brought  over  Hancock  by  promising  him  a  reelection  as  governor  and 
perhaps  implying  strongly  that  he  should  be  the  first  Vice  President  of  the 
new  government  (Source  Book,  No.  164). 


RATIFICATION 


327 


South  Carolina  were  added  to  the  list.  The  remaining  States 
long  remained  doubtful  or  opposed.  North  Carolina  and  Rhode 
Island  refused  to  ratify.  They  could  be  spared,  —  as  perhaps 
New  Hampshire  could  have  been ; 1  but  a  like  failure  in  any 
one  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  or  Virginia  would  almost 
surely  have  queered  the  whole  movement.      In  all  three  of 

Eighth   Federal   PILLAR   reared 


(From  the  Boston  Independent  Chronicle,  June  12,  1783. )2 

these  States  (as  probably  in  most  of  the  others)  a  direct  vote 
of  the  people  would  certainly  have  rejected  the  Constitution.3 
Even  in  the  conventions,  there  was  at  first  a  strong  hostile 
majority  in  each  of  these  three  ;  and,  after  the  many  weeks  of 
argument  and  persuasion,  to  have  defeated  ratification  would 
have  required  in  the  final  vote  a  change  in  Massachusetts  of 
only  10  votes  out  of  355 ;  in  Virginia,  of  only  5  out  of  168 ; 
and  in  New  York,  of  2  out  of  57.  Even  these  slim  majorities 
would  have  been  impossible,  except  for  pledges  from  the 
Federalists  that  they  would  join  in  securing  certain  desired 
amendments  as  soon  as  the  new  government  should  be  in 
operation.  The  New  Hampshire  convention  changed  its 
mind,  and  ratified  on  June  15  (making  the  ninth  State),  but  the 
absolutely  essential  accession  of  Virginia  did  not  take  place  until 
June  25,  —  just  in  time  for  the  news  to  reach  the  North  for  the 


*In  New  Hampshire  a  hostile  convention  had  adjourned  for  some  months. 

2  The  Chronicle  guessed  wrong  as  to  the  order  of  the  approaching  ratifica- 
tion.   See  text. 

8 The  Rhode  Island  legislature,  instead  of  calling  a  convention,  distributed 
copies  of  the  Constitution  among  the  voters  and  provided  for  a  direct  popular 
vote.    The  Federalists,  certain  of  defeat,  declaimed  against  this  method  as 


328 


THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  VOTES 
IN  RATIFICATION  OF 
THE  CONSTITUTION 

MIDDLE  AND  SOUTHERN  STATES 

1787-1788 

Based  on  map  prepared  by  O.G.Libby 

j  j  Federal  Majority 

|  j  Anti-Federal  Majority 

Evenly  Divided 


*  \ 


H 


,  Pennsylvania,  /  £  fe 


>;-.    S^  H  UV  H 


improper,  and  remained  away  from  the  polls.  The  vote  stood  2708  to  232. 
Two  years  later,  a  convention  accepted  the  Constitution  34  to  32.  In  general, 
the  commercial  centers  favored  the  Constitution,  while  the  agricultural  and 
western  sections  opposed  it.  See  map  above,  from  Libby's  "  The  Distribu- 
tion of  the  Vote  for  the  Ratifying  Conventions"  in  Wisconsin  Historical 
Bulletin,  I,  No.  1. 


RATIFICATION  329 

Fourth  of  July  celebrations.1  New  York's  ratification  came 
still  later,  and  was  due  primarily  to  Hamilton.  Never  did  his 
splendid  intellect  render  his  country  nobler  service.  Day  by 
day,  against  almost  hopeless  odds,  and  for  a  time  almost  alone 
in  debate,  by  powerful  logic  and  gentle  persuasion,  he  beat 
down  and  wore  away  the  two  thirds  majority  against  the  Con- 
stitution, until  at  last  the  greater  leaders  of  the  opposition 
came  frankly  to  his  side. 

yffZ^"  {For  reading  in  class  orily.~\ 

21l.  Excursus:  "We  the  People." — Who  ratified  the  Constitu- 
tion ?  The  several  States,  as  States  ?  or  one  consolidated  people  ?  Of 
the  second  view,  Professor  William  McDonald  says  very  fitly,  "  No 
theory  could  have  a  slighter  historical  foundation";2  but  that  theory 
is  still  taught  in  many  leading  books,  and  is  often  regarded  as  identical 
with  patriotism.  It  rests,  however,  wholly  upon  the  opening  words  of 
the  preamble  to  the  Constitution:  "We,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  ...  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution."  Merely  as  lan- 
guage, these  words  have  no  more  value  than  the  Fifth  Article  of  the 
Constitution,  which  explicitly  says  twice  that  the  ratifying  parties  are 
the  States  ;  and  such  slight  significance  as  the  preamble  might  otherwise 
have,  disappears  upon  tracing  its  history. 

The  preamble  appeared  first  in  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Detail ;  but  it  then  read  "  We,  the  people  of  the  States  of  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  [and  so  on  through 
the  list]  do  ordain,"  etc.  Plainly,  this  did  not  mean  a  consoli- 
dated nation.     It  meant  thirteen  peoples,  each  acting  directly, 

1  At  Albany,  on  the  Fourth,  the  news  caused  the  wildest  excitement.  The 
Federalists  celebrated  by  firing  ten  guns  for  the  new  government.  The  Antis 
retorted  with  thirteen  guns  for  the  Confederation,  which,  they  claimed,  was 
still  the  constitutional  government.  Afterwards,  they  made  a  bonfire  of  a 
copy  of  the  new  Constitution  and  of  the  handbills  announcing  Virginia's 
ratification.  In  the  ashes,  the  rallied  Federalists  planted  a  lofty  pole  with 
another  copy  of  the  Constitution  nailed  to  the  top,  and  in  the  riot  that  fol- 
lowed, knives  were  used  and  some  blood  was  shed.  In  Pennsylvania  more 
serious  riots  took  place, —  if  less  picturesque,  —  with  participation  by  militia 
and  cannon. 

2  Jacksonian  Democracy  ("  American  Nation  "  series),  109. 


330  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

not  through  legislatures.  The  Convention  accepted  the  word- 
ing without  debate.  Almost  at  the  close  of  the  Conven- 
tion, the  Committee  on  Style  changed  the  words  to  their 
present  form.  No  explanation  was  ever  made  by  a  member 
of  the  Convention  for  the  change,  but  it  explains  itself. 
The  Convention  had  now  decided  to  put  the  new  government 
into  operation  between  the  first  nine  States  ratifying.  It  was 
impossible  to  name  these  in  advance,  and  obviously  it  would 
be  highly  improper  to*  name  any  which  might  not  come  in 
at  all ;  so  all  names,  were  dropped  out.  No  change  of  meaning 
was  designed.  Tlie  new  form,  like  the  first,  was  accepted  with- 
out debate. 

Outside  the  Convention,  however,  this  was  at  first  not  under- 
stood ;  and  States-rights  men  vehemently  attacked  the  word- 
ing, fearing  that  it  did  mean  a  consolidated  people, — until 
Madison  assured  them  that  it  did  not.  Samuel  Adams  wrote 
to  Richard  Henry  Lee,  "  I  stumble  at  the  threshold " ;  and, 
in  the  Virginia  Convention,  Patrick  Henry  exclaimed,  — 
"  What  right  had  they  to  say,  l  We,  the  people '  .  .  .  instead  of 
'We,  the  States'?  If  the  States  be  not  the  parties  to  this 
compact,  it  must  be  one  great  consolidated  national  government 
of  the  people  of  all  the  States."  Madison  answered:  "Who 
are  the  parties?  The  people; l  but  not  the  people  as  composing 
one  great  body:  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sovereignties." 
Otherwise,  he  adds  in  proof,  a  majority  would  bind  all  the 
States ;  "  but,  sir,  no  State  is  bound,  as  it  is,  without  its  own 


1  The  writer  once  heard  a  Federal  judge,  in  a  public  address,  quote  this 
far,  and  stop  here,  to  prove  that  Madison  taught  the  doctrine  of  ratification 
by  a  consolidated  nation.  Horace  Greeley's  Great  American  Conflict  (I,  81) 
contains  a  similar  misrepresentation  of  the  record.  After  quoting  Henry's 
objections,  with  specific  page  reference  to  the  records  of  the  Virginia  con- 
vention, Greeley  continues,  without  page  reference  of  course, —  "  These  cavilers 
were  answered  frankly  and  firmly,  "  It  is  the  work  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  as  distinguished  from  the  States  in  their  primary  and  sovereign 
capacity,  and  why  should  not  the  fact  be  truly  stated."  Of  course,  this  is 
"newspaper  history."  That  was  the  way  Greeley  thought  Henry  ought  to 
have  been  answered.    The  real  answer  was  the  precise  opposite. 


RATIFICATION  331 

consent."  1  And  lie  goes  on  to  explain  that  the  words  mean 
only  that  in  each  State  the  people  act  in 'the  most  solemn  way, 
not  merely  through  the  usual  legislative  channel.2 

Twice  before,  Henry  had  made  the  same  objection;  but  in 
his  later  attacks  upon  the  Constitution,  he  does  not  recur  to  it. 
On  this  point  Madison's  answer  was  final.  No  other  man 
could  speak  on  this  subject  with  so  much  authority.  The 
idea  of  this  method  of  ratification  (by  State  conventions)  had 
been  original  with  Madison,3  and  all  through  the  sessions  of 
the  Philadelphia  Convention  he  had  been  its  chief  champion.4 

Thirty  years  later,  the  doctrine  of  ratification  by  a  consolidated  people, 
based  on  the  opening  words  of  the  preamble,  was  revived  by  Chief  Jus- 
tice Marshall,  and  was  soon  given  added  emphasis  by  the  massive  and 
patriotic  oratory  of  Daniel  Webster ;  and  the  idea  took  its  place  in  the 
mind  of  the  North  as  an  essential  article  in  the  creed  of  patriotism,  — 
along  with  the  much  more  excusable  misunderstanding  regarding  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Union  (§  187).  The  plain  historical 
fact,  however,  is  that  the  several  States,  looking  upon  themselves  as  so 
many  distinct  sovereignties,  and,  feeling  absolutely  free  either  to  accept 


1  This  argument  of  Madison  disposes  absolutely  of  the  plea  that  a  consoli- 
dated nation  acted  through  the  States  as  convenient  election  districts. 

2  Madison  amplified  this  last  thought  in  the  Federalist  (No.  39) :  Ratifica- 
tion "is  to  be  given  by  the  people,  not  as  individuals,  but  as  composing  the 
distinct  and  independent  States  to  which  they  respectively  belong.  It  is  the 
assent  and  ratification  of  the  several  States,  derived  from  the  Supreme  author- 
ity in  each  State,  —  the  authority  of  the  people  themselves  [not  merely  from 
the  subordinate  authority  of  the  State  legislature]  .  .  .  Each  State,  in  ratify- 
ing the  Constitution,  is  considered  as  a  sovereign  body,  independent  of  all 
others,  and  only  to  be  bound  by  its  own  voluntary  act.  In  this  relation,  then, 
the  Constitution,  if  established,  will  be  a  federal,  not  a  national,  constitu- 
tion." 

3  Cf.  Madison's  account  of  the  preliminaries  of  the  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion in  the  Preface  to  his  Journal. 

4  Part  of  the  confusion  was  due  to  the  loose  use  of  political  terms.  Most 
members  of  the  Convention  used  State  as  equivalent  to  State  government 
or  State  legislature.  Madison  was  one  of  the  few  men  of  the  day  who  saw 
that  the  State  was  really  the  people  and  not  the  government.  He  desired 
ratification  by  the  States,  in  this  highest  sense,  and  not  merely  by  temporary 
agents  of  the  States. 


332  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION 

or  reject  the  Constitution,  did  decide  to  accept  it,— and,  by  so  doing,  made 
possible  the  future  development  of  a  consolidated  nation. 

Says  William  McDonald  (Jacksonian  Democracy,  109,  110):  — "Web- 
ster's doctrine  of  •  the  people  '  was  a  glorious  fiction.  It  has  entered  into 
the  warp  and  woof  of  our  constitutional  creed  ;  but  it  was  fiction,  never- 
theless. .  .  .  If  anything  is  clear  in  the  history  of  the  United  States,  it  is 
that  the  Constitution  was  established  by  the  States,  acting  through  con- 
ventions authorized  by  the  legislatures  thereof,  and  not  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  in  any  such  sense  as  Webster  had  in  mind."  (Cf.  the 
quotation  from  Senator  Lodge,  at  the  close  of  §  210.) 

For  Further  Reading.  — The  story  of  the  struggle  for  a  new  consti- 
tution should  be  read  if  possible  either  in  Fiske's  Critical  Period  or  in 
McLaughlin's  Confederation  and  Constitution  (chs.  iii-vi  and  ix-xv). 
On  constitutional  interpretation,  students  cannot  be  asked  to  go  beyond 
the  specific  footnote  references  given  above.  The  Source  Book  contains 
considerable  material. 

Exercise. —  The  constitution  and  notes  in  the  Appendix  shoidd 
be  read  in  class  and  talked  over  at  this  stage,  until  the  student 
is  absolutely  at  home  with  such  questions  as  accompany  the  docu- 
ment there. 


■*& 


CHAPTER   IX 

FEDERALIST    ORGANIZATION 

I.     CONSTITUTIONAL   DEVELOPMENT   WRITTEN   AND 
UNWRITTEN 

212.  The  first  elections1  under  the  Constitution  were  very 
unlike  those  of  the  present  time ;  and  they  showed  a  striking 
variety  among  themselves.     Presidential  electors  were  chosen 

(1)  by  legislatures  in  six  States  out  of  the  ten  that  took  part ; 2 

(2)  by  popular  vote  (put  in  districts)  in  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land, and  Virginia ; 3  and  (3)  in  Massachusetts  by  a  quaint 
mixture  of  the  two  methods.4  In  no  State  did  the  people 
choose  them  directly  and  on  one  general  ticket,  —  the  method  so 
universal  to-day.5 

1  The  dying  Congress  of  the  Confederation  provided  for  these  elections  by 
a  vote  of  September  13,  with  nine  States  present.  (Cf .  §  188,  note,  for  dwin- 
dling attendance  during  the  preceding  year.)  A  week  later,  the  attendance 
had  sunk  to  six  States,  and,  by  October  14,  to  two.  Thereafter,  to  keep  up  a 
shadow  of  government,  a  few  delegates  met  day  by  day,  had  their  names 
recorded  in  the  journal,  and  then,  for  want  of  a  quorum,  adjourned  to  some 
favorite  tavern.  The  Congress  expired  for  want  of  a  quorum  seven  months 
before  the  new  government  was  organized. 

a  This  was  the  method  which  had  been  generally  anticipated.  Cf.  §  208  a 
and  note.  Can  the  student  account  for  the  missing  three  States  of  the  thir- 
teen, —  by  help  of  a  paragraph  below  for  one  of  them  ? 

3  Virginia  lost  two  of  her  votes,  because  in  two  districts  no  elections  were 
held.  Maryland,  also,  lost  two  votes.  Two  of  her  electors,  after  being 
chosen,  failed  to  attend  the  electoral  meeting,  on  account  of  gout  and  poor 
roads. 

4  In  each  Congressional  district,  the  people  nominated  three  candidates, 
from  whom  the  legislature  chose  one,  — with  two  more  "electors  at  large." 
Why  did  that  make  the  proper  number  ?    (See  Constitution.) 

5  New  Hampshire  tried  popular  election  on  a  general  ticket ;  but  there  was 
no  machinery  for  previous  nominations,  so  that  the  people  of  one  part  of  the 
State  could  know  what  set  of  candidates  their  friends  elsewhere  were  sup- 

333 


334  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

Two  forcible  illustrations  were  afforded  of  disregard  of  the  popular 
will  and  of  the  public  weal  by  "delegated"  government.  In  elections 
by  legislatures,  custom  favored  a  joint  ballot  (the  two  Houses  voting  as 
one  body).  This  method  was  used  in  five  of  the  six  States  which  chose 
electors  by  legislatures.  But  in  New  Hampshire,  the  upper  House  was 
Federalist,  while  the  more  numerous  and  more  representative  lower 
House  was  Antifederalist.  If  the  two  voted  in  one  body,  the  Antifeder- 
alists  would  prevail.  Accordingly  the  Senate  insisted  upon  election  by 
concurrent  vote  —  as  ordinary  bills  are  passed  —  so  that  it  might  have  a 
veto  on  the  other  House.  The  wrangle  lasted  for  weeks,  until  the  mid- 
night preceding  the  day  when  the  electors  in  the  various  States  were  to 
cast  their  ballots.  Then,  not  to  lose  the  vote  of  the  State  altogether,  the 
larger  House  surrendered,  and  chose  electors  acceptable  to  the  Senate. 

In  New  York,  the  situation  was  similar,  but  the  outcome  different. 
The  farthest  the  Senate  would  go  toward  a  compromise  was  that  each 
Chamber  should  choose  half  the  electors  out  of  men  nominated  by  the 
other.  The  Antifederalist  House  refused  to  yield  its  claim  to  a  joint  ballot ; 
and  New  York  had  no  part  in  the  Presidential  election, — nor,  for  some 
time,  did  she  have  any  United  States  Senators. 

There  was  no  party  organization,  and  there  had  been  no 
formal  nominations.  All  electors  knew  they  were  expected  to 
vote  for  Washington  for  President,  and  he  received  the  69 
votes  cast.  But  for  Vice  President  there  was  no  such  agree- 
ment. Some  of  the  Antifederalists  had  even  hoped  to  elect 
George  Clinton  of  New  York,  Hamilton's  chief  adversary 
there ;  but  the  plan  fell  to  pieces  when  New  York  failed  to 
take  part  in  the  election.  Eleven  names  were  voted  for  by  the 
69  electors,  five  States  splitting  their  votes.  Virginia  divided 
her  ten  between  Adams,  Jay,  Hancock,  and  Clinton.  John 
Adams  was  elected,  but  by  only  thirty-four  votes,  —  one  less 
than  half.1 


porting.  Accordingly,  no  candidates  received  a  majority  of  all  votes  cast; 
and  the  law  required,  in  such  case,  that  the  election  go  to  the  legislature  — 
with  results  given  below. 

1  Such  a  vote  would  not  elect  to-day.    Explain  why  it  did  then. 

Part  of  this  scattering  was  due  to  honest  fear  lest  Adams  receive  the 
same  vote  as  Washington,  and  so  tie  him  for  the  Presidency  [before  the 
Twelfth  Amendment] ;  but  in  two  States  at  least  the  scattering  of  the  vote 


STRUGGLE   FOR  SIMPLICITY  335 

The  Continental  Congress  had  named  the  first  Wednesday 
in  March  for  the  inauguration  of  the  new  government  at  New 
York  City.1  On  that  day,  however,  only  8  Senators  (out  of 
22)  and  13  Representatives  (out  of  59)  had  arrived;  and  the 
electoral  votes  could  not  be  counted,  The  two  Houses  met  from 
day  to  day,  for  roll  call  and  adjournment,  sending  occasional 
urgent  entreaties  to  dilatory  members  in  neighboring  States ; 
but  not  till  almost  five  weeks  later  (April  6)  was  the  necessary 
quoruinsecured.  Then  matters  moved  rapidly  ;  and  April  30, 
Cmgton  was  inaugurated  with  great  state  and  solemnity.2 

213.  The  Struggle  for  Simplicity.  — For  nearly  three  weeks, 
Congress  wrangled  over  matters  of  ceremony.  After  solemn 
deliberation,  the  Senate  recommended  that  Washington  be 
styled  "His  Highness,  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America  and  Protector  of  the  Liberties  of  the  Same."  The 
more  democratic  Representatives  insisted  on  giving  only  the 
title  used  in  the  Constitution  — "  President  of  the  United 
States."  Finally  this  House  actually  sent  an  address  to  Wash- 
ington by  this  title ;  and  the  Senate  had  to  lay  aside  its  tinsel.3 


was  due  to  trickery  by  Hamilton,  who  disliked  Adams  (McMaster,  History  of 
the  People  of  the  United  States,  I,  526-530). 

1  In  1789,  that  Wednesday  fell  upon  March  4;  and  ever  since,  that  day  has 
been  kept  for  the  inauguration  of  a  new  President.  This  has  become  exceed- 
ingly awkward.  Elections  now  take  place  in  November.  The  old  President 
remains  in  charge  for  five  months ;  while  the  newly  elected  Congress  (unless 
summoned  in  special  session)  does  not  assemble  for  thirteen  months.  The 
arrangement  has  sometimes  left  the  government  for  many  critical  months  in 
the  hands  of  a  President  and  Congress  whom  the  nation  has  just  repudiated 
at  the  polls.  A  much-needed  change  (which  might  be  established  by  Con- 
gress and  President  at  any  time)  is  to  inaugurate  both  branches  of  a  newly 
chosen  government  within  t  vo  months  after  the  elections. 

2  What  were  some  of  the  essential  proceedings,  after  Congress  secured  a 
quorum,  before  Washington  could  be  inaugurated  ? 

3  William  Maclay,  one  of  the  few  democratic  Senators,  tells  us  that  Adams 
(presiding  in  the  Senate)  spoke  forty  minutes  from  the  chair  in  opposition  to 
this  simple  form.  "  What,"  he  exclai  .ned,  "  will  the  common  people  of  other 
countries,  what  will  the  sailors  and  soldiers,  say  of  '  George  Washington, 
President  of  United  States'?  They  will  despise  him  to  all  eternity" 
(Maclay '§  Journal,  27). 


336  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

The  immediate  occasion  for  this  disturbance  was  the  need  to  decide 
how  to  treat  the  speech  with  which  Washington  "opened"  the  sessions 
of  Congress.  That  speech  itself  was  couched  in  terms  such  as  the  king 
of  England  used  toward  parliament  on  like  occasions.  After  the  custom 
of  parliament,  each  House  replied  with  an  "  address  of  thanks,"  riding 
in  carriages  from  the  Halls  of  Congress  to  Washington's  audience  room, 
and  standing  in  his  presence  while  the  addresses  were  read.  All  this 
procedure  was  another  of  the  trappings  of  Old- World  formalism  which 
happily  dropped  from  our  practice  at  the  inauguration  of  Jefferson  (§  254). 
Since  that  time,  the  President  sends  to  Congress  written  "  messages." 

During  the  debate  over  titles,  one  particularly  quaint  episode  occurred. 
The  Senate  minutes  referred  to  Washington's  speech  as  "  His  most  gra- 
cious speech,"  the  form  always  used  in  parliament  regarding  the  speech 
from  the  Throne.  Senator  Maclay  objected  to  the  phrase,  and  finally  it 
was  struck  from  the  record.  Vice  President  Adams,  however,  defended 
it  hotly,  declaring  (according  to  Maclay)  that  if  he  could  have  foreseen 
such  agitation,  he  "  would  never  have  drawn  his  sword''''  against  England 
in  the  Revolution.1 

It  has  been  too  much  the  custom  to  ridicule  the  objectors  to 
these  "harmless"  forms  and  titles.  The  titles  were  " harm- 
less"; but  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  demanded  was  not. 
That  spirit  was  quite  as  violent,  and  quite  as  ridiculous  in  its 
extravagance  and  lack  of  humor,  as  was  the  democratic  oppo- 
sition to  it.  The  aristocrats  believed  that  government  ought 
to  be  hedged  about  with  ceremonial  to  secure  due  reverence. 
It  is  easy  to  find  matter  for  laughter  in  the  manifestations  of 
the  democratic  opposition ; 2  but  at  least  let  us  acknowledge 
gratefully  our  debt  to  it  for  turning  the  current  of  American 
practice  away  from  childish  or  slavish  ceremonial  and  verbiage, 
toward  manly  simplicity  and  common  sense. 

1  Soon  after,  the  struggle  was  renewed  on  the  bill  to  establish  the  mint.  It 
was  proposed  that  each  coin  should  bear  the  image  of  the  President  during 
whose  administration  it  was  coined  —  after  the  fashion  of  all  royal  coinage. 
A  few  radicals  attacked  this  "  disposition  to  ape  monarchic  practice,"  and 
the  proposal  was  dropped,  in  favor  of  the  use  of  an  emblematic  "  Goddess  of 
Liberty." 

2  Jefferson  wrote  from  Paris,  rejoicing  at  the  defeat  of  the  proposed  title: 
"I  hope  the  titles  of  Excellency,  Honor,  Worship,  Esquire,  forever  dis- 
appeared from  among  us  from  that  moment.  I  wish  that  of  Mr.  would  follow 
them."    "  Mister  "  had  not  ceased  to  denote  social  rank  in  America. 


EXECUTIVE  AND  SENATE  337 

214.  Fixing  the  Constitutional  Position  of  the  Senate  in  its 
Executive  Functions. — Another  question  of  forms  had  to  do 
not  merely  with  ceremony,  but  directly  with  power.  The  Con- 
stitution requires  the  consent  of  the  Senate  to  Presidential 
appointments  and  to  treaties  ;  but  does  not  say  how  that 
consent  shall  be  given.  Washington  and  his  Cabinet  were  at 
first  inclined  to  treat  the  Senate  as  an  English  monarch  treated 
his  Privy  Council.  When  the  first  nomination  for  a  foreign 
minister  came  up  (June  17),  Vice  President  Adams  attempted 
to  take  the  "advice  and  consent"  of  the  Senators  one  by 
one,  viva  voce.  This  attack  upon  the  independence  of  the 
Senate  was  foiled  by  Maclay,  who  insisted  upon  vote  by  ballot. 

August  22-23  occurred  a  more  important  incident  of  like 
nature.  Through  the  Secretary  of  War,  Washington  had  pre- 
pared a  treaty  with  certain  Indian  tribes.  Instead  of  sending 
the  printed  document  to  the  Senate  for  consideration,  Wash- 
ington came  in  person,  took  the  Vice  President's  presiding 
chair,  asked  Secretary  Knox  to  read  the  treaty  aloud  (which 
was  done  hurriedly  and  indistinctly),  and  then  asked  at  once 
for  "advice  and  consent,"  to  be  given  in  his  presence.  As 
Maclay  properly  observes,  there  was  "no  chance  for  a  fair 
investigation  while  the  President  of  the  United  States  sat 
there  with  his  Secretary  of  War  to  support  his  opinions  and 
overawe  the  timid  and  neutral."  Still  the  question  was  being 
put,  when  Maclay's  sturdy  republicanism  once  more  intervened. 
He  called  for  certain  other  papers  bearing  on  the  subject,  and 
this  resulted  in  a  suggestion  for  postponement  and  for  the  sub- 
mission of  all  papers  to  a  committee.  Maclay  asserts  that 
Washington,  who  had  received  the  first  interruption  with  "  an 
aspect  of  stern  displeasure,"  now  "started  up  in  a  violent 
fret,"  exclaiming,  "  This  defeats  every  purpose  of  my  coming 
here."1  At  length,  however,  he  assented  to  the  proposition  for 
delay. 

1  The  Journal  of  William  Maclay  is  a  curious  work  which  should  be  ac- 
cessible to  every  student  of  this  period.  Maclay,  Senator  from  Pennsylvania, 
was  an  honest,  well-meaning,  rather  suspicious  man,  without  breadth  of  view, 


338  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

A  little  later,  when  Hamilton  wished  to  appear  in  person  to 
argue  his  financial  plans,  Congress  refused  to  receive  him.  So 
was  fixed  the  custom  that  Cabinet  officers  shall  make  all  their 
recommendations,  through  the  President,  in  written  form  ;  and 
subsequent  Presidents  have  made  all  their  communications  to 
Congress  in  writing. 

215.  Evolution  of  a  "Cabinet."  —  The  Constitution,  by  its 
language,  suggests  single  heads  for  various  executive  depart- 
ments (rather  than  the  committees  customary  under  the  old 
Confederation).  Very  early,  therefore,  Congress  established 
three  departments,  —  State,  Treasury,  and  War,  —  together 
with  an  Attorney-generalship.  Washington  appointed  as  the 
three  "Secretaries,"  Jefferson,  Hamilton,  and  Henry  Knox; 
and  made  Edmund  Randolph  the  Attorney-general.1 

These  officials  were  designed,  separately,  to  advise  and  assist 
the  President ;  but  neither  the  Act  of  Congress  nor  the  Con- 
stitution made  any  reference  to  them  as  one  collective  body, — 
that  is,  as  a  "  Cabinet."  And  yet,  though  very  different  from 
the  English  body  of  that  name,  the  Cabinet  has  become  by 
custom  an  important  part  of  our  constitutional  machinery. 
The  written  Constitution  provides  only  that  the  President 
"  may  require  the  opinion,  in  ivriting,  of  the  principal  officer  in 
each  of  the  executive  departments,  upon  any  subject  relating 
to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices."  This  gave  no  warrant 
for  asking  advice,  for  instance,  from  the  Secretary  of  War 
upon  a  matter  of  finance  or  of  diplomacy ;  but  almost  at  once 
Washington  began  to  treat  the  group  as  one  official  family. 


or  social  graces,  but  with  an  ardent  republicanism.  He  was  no  hero 
worshiper.  John  Adams  (his  pet  aversion)  is  credited  with  "a  very  silly- 
kind  of  laugh  .  .  .  the  most  unmeaning  simper  that  ever  dimpled  the  face 
of  folly."  Madison  is  styled  "His  Littleness."  Hamilton  appears  with  "a 
very  boyish,  giddy  manner."  And  even  Jefferson  wears  "a  rambling,  vacant 
look." 

1  At  this  time  the  Attorney-general  was  not  head  of  a  specific  department, 
as  were  the  several  Secretaries.  He  was  merely  the  general  advisor  of  the 
President  in  legal  complications.  In  1870  he  became  head  of  a  new  "  Depart- 
ment of  Justice." 


^v   -- —     —  ^    —  r       0 


EVOLUTION  OF  A  CABINET  339 


When  he  was  troubled  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bank 
Bill  (§  222),  he  asked  both  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  for  written 
opinions  ;  and,  in  1793,  when  war  between  England  and  France 
raised  serious  questions  as  to  the  proper  policy  for  America 
(§  230),  he  called  the  three  Secretaries  and  Randolph  into  per- 
sonal counsel  in  a  body.  This  was  the  first  "  Cabinet  meeting  "0 
of  which  we  have  definite  knowledge.  The  name  appears  later 
in  the  same  year.1 

President  Adams  lived  at  odds  with  his  Cabinet  (1797-1801), 
but  Jefferson  revived  and  confirmed  the  meetings  as  a  regular 
procedure.  From  his  day  (1801-1809),  there  has  been  little 
change  in  the  Cabinet  except  in  size.2 

The  Cabinet  now  meets  at  fixed  times,  one  day  of  each  week  being 
known  as  Cabinet  day.  No  minutes  of  the  meetings  are  kept.  Impor- 
tant matters  are  discussed,  and  sometimes  votes  are  taken;  but  such 
votes  are  in  no  way  binding  upon  the  President.  On  one  occasion, 
President  Lincoln  found  every  member  of  his  Cabinet  against  him,  and 
dismissed  the  matter  by  stating,  ' '  Seven  nays,  one  aye ;  the  ayes 
have  it." 

One  of  the  first  official  acts  of  a  new  President  is  to  send  to  the  Senate 
his  nominations  for  heads  of  departments.  The  approval  of  even  a  hos- 
tile Senate  for  these  nominations  is  usually  a  matter  of  form.  In  the 
First  Congress,  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice  President  established  the 
absolute  right  of  the  President  to  dismiss  at  will  these  officials  and  other 
presidential  appointees.3 


1  A  letter  of  Washington  of  the  preceding  year  seems  to  imply  that  such 
meetings  were  already  practiced. 

2  From  time  to  time  Congress  has  decreed  new  departments.  In  1798  a 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  was  given  part  of  the  duties  of  the  old  Department  of 
War.  The  Post  Office  was  established  in  1790  as  a  part  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, but  in  1829  the  Postmaster-general  became  the  equal  of  the  other 
heads  of  departments.  In  1849  there  were  added  a  Department  of  the  Interior ; 
and  out  of  this  were  carved  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  1889,  and  the 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  in  1903. 

3  The  consent  of  the  Senate  being  required  for  the  appointment,  it  was  ar- 
gued that  like  consent  was  essential  to  dismissal.  Further  reason  for  this 
view  was  found  in  the  fact  that  the  precise  duties  of  each  "  Secretary"  are 
fixed  by  Congress,  in  the  creation  of  the  Department  — not  by  the  President. 


40  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

216.  The  Bill  of  Rights.  —  Seven  of  the  ratifying  State  con- 
ventions had  proposed  amendments,  124  in  number.1  Early  in 
the  first  session  of  Congress,  Madison  introduced  a  list  of 
twenty  amendments.  Twelve  were  adopted  by  Congress,  and 
ten  of  these  were  ratified  by  legislatures  in  the  necessary  three 
.fourths  of  the  States.2 

These  ten  amendments 3  are  commonly  known  as  "  The  Bill 
of  Rights,"  and  they  were  designed  to  supply  that  particular 
lack  in  the  Constitution.  They  forbid1  Congress  to  interfere 
with  freedom  of  religion,  freedom  of  the  press,  or  freedom  of 
petition,  and  they  prohibit  general  warrants  or  excessive  bail 
or  cruel  and  unusual  punishments.  They  further  guarantee 
to  citizens,  in  criminal  accusations,  a  right  to  trial  by  a  jury  of 
the  neighborhood  (§§  139, 140),  and,  in  civil  cases,  the  right  to 
jury  trial,  if  desired  by  either  party,  when  the  amount  in 
dispute  exceeds  twenty  dollars.  The  ninth  and  tenth  amend- 
ments are  general  in  character,  and  are  intended  to  emphasize 
the  idea  that  the  Federal  government  is  limited  to  those 
powers  enumerated  in  the  Constitution.4 

Still,  the  decision  was  wise.  The  President  certainly  should  have  complete 
freedom  in  naming  and  changing  his  chief  advisers,  upon  whom  in  so  great 
measure  the  success  of  his  administration  must  rest. 

1  Many  of  these,  of  course,  were  practically  identical.  The  largest  number 
from  one  State  was  32  from  New  York. 

2  In  what  other  ways  might  the  amendments  have  been  proposed  and 
adopted  ?  (Study  carefully  Article  V  of  the  Constitution.)  The  last  of  these 
State  ratifications  was  not  received  until  the  close  of  1791,  after  a  period  of 
two  years.  For  some  amendments,  a  much  longer  time  has  elapsed  (four 
years,  for  the  eleventh).  This  reveals  a  serious  defect  in  Article  V.  Some 
specific  time  should  have  been  provided  within  which  ratification  should  take 
place. 

3  Read  the  amendments  in  Appendix,  and  compare  with  this  analysis.  Of 
the  two  that  failed,  one  dealt  with  reapportionment,  and  the  other  provided 
that  any  change  in  the  pay  of  Congressmen  should  not  apply  to  the  Congress 
that  passed  the  law  (a  sensible  provision,  which  would  have  prevented 
"back-pay"  scandals  in  our  later  history). 

4  Since  they  were  all  additions,  rather  then  modifications,  it  was  natural  to 
annex  these  amendments,  as  separate  articles,  at  the  close  of  the  Constitution. 
The  same  practice,  however,  has  been  followed  with  later  amendments,  even 
where  (notably  with  the  eleventh  and  twelfth)  the  matter  would  have  been 


THE   JUDICIARY  341 

All  these  amendments  were  intended  to  restrict  the  Central  government, 
but  this  is  expressed  directly  only  in  the  first  and  last  amendments,  and 
many  people  think  of  the  restrictions  as  applying  to  the  States.  It  is 
unfortunate  that  that  the  wording  is  not  more  specific.  Congress  can 
give  no  religion  preference  over  another  ;  but  a  State  legislature  may  do 
so,  —  unless  forbidden  by  the  constitution.  Indeed,  some  States  did 
maintain  religious  establishments  for  many  years  after  the  ratification  of 
this  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  (§§  291,  294). 

217.  The  Judiciary  augmented.  —  The  Constitution  made  it 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  a  Supreme  Court.  The 
"original  jurisdiction"  of  that  Court  was  stated  in  the  Con- 
stitution ;  but  Congress  was  left  at  liberty  to  regulate  the  "  ap- 
pellate jurisdiction,"  and  to  provide  inferior  courts,  or  not,  at 
its  discretion.  The  great  Judiciary  Act  of  1789  established  a 
system  of  which  the  main  features  still  remain.1 

a.  It  provided  for  a  Supreme  Court  (a  Chief  Justice  and 
five  Associate  Justices)  to  sit  at  the  Capital.2 

b.  It  established  two  grades  of  inferior  courts  covering  the 
entire  Union. 

There  were  at  first  thirteen  District  Courts,  each  with  a 
resident  judge.  These  districts  were  grouped  into  three 
circuits,  each  with  its  Circuit  Court  intermediate  between 
District  Court  and  Supreme  Court.  At  this  time,  there  were  no 
distinct  Circuit  Judges.  Each  Circuit  Court  consisted  of  a 
District  Judge  from  one  of  the  districts  within  its  borders  and 
of  two  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  "  on  circuit." 

c.  It  provided  for  appeals  to  the  Supreme  Court,  not  only 
from  inferior  Federal  courts,  but  also  from  any  State  couft,  in 
all  cases  where  such  a  court  had  denied   any  right  or  power 


much  better  managed  by  recasting  a  paragraph  in  the  original  document. 
Even  the  first  amendments  might  well  have  found  place  in  Article  I,  section  9. 
Let  the  class  rewrite  the  main  body  of  the  Constitution  in  such  fashion  as  to 
incorporate  the  various  amendments,  up  to  date. 

1  Cf .   Appendix  I,  and  references  there,  for  the  most  important    changes 
since. 

2  The  number  of  Associate  Justices  is  now  eight  (1912). 


342  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

claimed  under'  a  Federal  law  or  treaty  or  under  the  Constitu- 
tion.1 

218.  Supreme  Court  limited  by  the  Eleventh  Amendment.  — 
The  first  decision  to  draw  public  attention  to  the  enormous 
powers  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  in  the  case  of  Chisholm  v. 
Georgia,  in  1793.  Chisholm,  a  citizen  of  South  Carolina,  sued 
in  the  Supreme  Court  to  recover  a  debt  from  the  State  of 
Georgia.2  The  Constitution  states  that  "the  judicial  power 
shall  extend  ...  to  controversies  between  a  State  and  citizens 
of  another  State."  Georgia,  however,  claimed  that  this  phrase 
meant  only  that  a  State  could  sue  private  citizens  in  the  Fed- 
eral Court,  not  that  a  State  could  itself  be  sued  by  private  in- 
dividuals. If  the  language  were  used  for  the  first  time  to-day, 
such  interpretation  would  be  unnatural ;  but  the  ivords  must  be 
taken  in  the  light  of  State-sovereignty  ideas  of  that  era,  and,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  the  understanding  of  Georgia  was  the  general 
understanding  when  the  Constitution  was  ratified. 

In  the  discussions  over  ratification,  fear  was  sometimes  expressed  that 
this  clause  might  enable  a  private  citizen  to  sue  "  a  sovereign  State."  In 
all  such  cases,  the  leading  Federalists  explained  that  such  meaning  was 
impossible.  Madison,  in  the  Virginia  convention,  declared  the  objection 
"  without  reason,"  because  "  it  is  not  In  the  power  of  individuals  to  call 
any  State  into  court."  In  the  same  debate,  John  Marshall  (afterwards 
Chief  Justice),  in  defending  the  clause  as  it  stood,  exclaimed:  "I  hope 
no  gentlemen  will  think  that  a  State  will  be  called  at  the  bar  of  a  Federal 
court.  ...  It  is  not  natural  to  suppose  that  the  sovereign  power  should 
be  dragged  before  a  court.  The  intent  is  to  enable  States  to  recover  claims 
against  individuals  residing  in  other  States.''''  And  Hamilton  in  the 
Federalist  (No.  81)  declared  any  other  view  "  altogether  forced  and  unac- 
countable," because  "  it  is  inherent  in  the  nature  of  sovereignty  not  to  be 
amenable  to  the  suit  of  an  individual  without  its  own  consent." 

1  This  was  the  most  important  portion  of  the  law  (cf.  §  207  a) ;  it  is  given 
in  full  in  Appendix  I.  The  establishment  of  inferior  Federal  courts  (b)  also 
greatly  extended  the  authority  of  the  Federal  judiciary,  in  practice,  at  the 
expense  of  State  courts,  since  it  made  the  Federal  courts  so  much  more  ac- 
cessible than  if  there  had  been  only  one  court  at  Washington. 

2  What  authority  is  there  in  the  Constitution  for  bringing  this  suit  origi- 
nally in  the  Supreme  Court,  if  it  could  be  brought  at  all,  rather  than  in  a 
District  Court? 


HAMILTON'S  MEASURES  343 

Now,  however,  influenced  by  the  reasoning  of  Chief  Justice 
Jay  and  Justice  Wilson,  the  Court,  by  a  divided  vote,  assumed 
jurisdiction.  Georgia  refused  to  appear,  and  judgment  went 
against  her.  Georgia  thereupon  threatened  death  "  without 
benefit  of  clergy  "  to  any  Federal  marshal  who  should  attempt 
to  collect  the  award.1  Similar  suits  were  pending  in  other 
States,  and  there  was  widespread  alarm.  The  legislatures  of 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Virginia  called  for  a  constitu- 
tional amendment,  and  passed  vigorous  resolutions  denouncing 
the  Court's  decision  as  "  dangerous  to  the  peace,  safety,  and 
independence  of  the  several  States,  and  repugnant  to  the  first 
principles  of  a  federal  government";  and  Congress  by  almost 
unanimous  vote  in  both  Houses  submitted  to  the  people  the 
eleventh  amendment,  to  reverse  the  decision  of  the  Court  and 
establish  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  maintained  by 
Georgia.  The  ratification  of  the  amendment  was  not  formally 
announced  until  1798 ;  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  enforce 
the  decision  of  the  Court  against  Georgia. 

It  follows  from  the  eleventh  amendment  that,  without  its  own  consent, 
a  State  cannot  be  sued  by  private  citizens,  — .its  own  or  from  other  States. 
Most  States,  therefore,  have  established  a  Court  of  Claims,  in  which  any 
claim  against  the  State  may  be  presented  ;  and  when  a  claim  has  there 
been  declared  valid,  it  is  customary  for  the  legislature  to  make  the  neces- 
sary appropriation  for  payment.  If  the  State  refuses  to  pay,  it  cannot  be 
forced  to  do  so.  In  several  cases,  States  have  repudiated  bonds  issued 
for  the  building  of  railways,  and  other  like  debts,  where  popular  feeling 
suspected  fraud  or  deceit  in  securing  the  loan. 

II.     HAMILTON'S   "PLAN,"    FINANCIAL  AND  CON- 
STITUTIONAL 

219.  Funding  and  Assumption.  —  For  the  first  year,  Congress 
made   appropriations   amounting  to  $  640,000,2  and   provided 

1  The  bill  to  this  effect  passed  the  lower  House  of  the  Georgia  legislature 
19  to  8.  Before  the  upper  House  took  it  up,  the  general  movement  for  a 
reversal  of  the  Court  (as  described  below)  had  such  headway  that  no  further 
action  was  thought  necessary. 

2  About  one  hundredth  as  much  per  citizen  as  the  cost  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment in  recent  years. 


344  FEDERALIST   ORGANIZATION 

for  this  expense  by  a  low  tariff.1  Meanwhile,  Hamilton's  mar- 
velous industry  and  skill  had  worked  out  a  comprehensive  plan 
to  care  for  the  old  debt  and  to  reorganize  the  chaotic  finances 
of  the  nation. 

He  recommended  that  the  new  government  formally  take  over 
the  "  Continental  debt  "  (both  the  $  11,500,000  due  abroad  and 
the  $  40,500,000  held  at  home),2  and  "  fund  "  it,  by  taking  it  up, 
at  face  value,  in  exchange  for  new  bonds  payable  in  fifteen  and 
twenty  years.  To  make  full  provision  for  the  foreign  part  of 
this  debt  was  inevitable,  if  the  United  States  was  to  have 
standing  among  the  nations,  and  Congress  gave  unanimous 
approval  to  this  portion  of  the  funding  scheme.  With  regard 
to  creditors  at  home,  however,  there  was  no  such  compulsion ; 
and  many  members  of  Congress  objected  to  taking  over  in  full 
the  old  domestic  debt.  For  the  most  part,  the  certificates  had 
passed  into  the  hands  of  speculators,  at  twelve  or  fifteen  cents 
on  the  dollar ;  and,  it  was  argued,  there  was  neither  necessity 
nor  propriety  in  voting  fortunes  out  of  the  people's  money  to 
men  who  had  so  traded  on  their  country's  needs.3     But  Hamil- 


1  On  the  third  day  after  Congress  had  secured  a  quorum,  Madison  intro- 
duced the  bill.  In  its  original  form,  it  was  purely  a  revenue  measure ;  but, 
through  the  efforts  of  Pennsylvania  members  in  particular  (cf .  §  124) ,  it  was 
amended  so  as  to  include  many  duties  designed  mainly  to  "  protect"  Ameri- 
can manufactures.  Indeed,  this  purpose  (which  is  not  named  in  the  constitu- 
tional enumeration  of  the  powers  of  Congress)  was  expressed  in  the  title  of 
the  bill.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  the  bill  remained  a  bill  for  revenue,  with 
incidental  protective  features.  The  law  was  based  upon  the  idea  in  the  pro- 
posed "  revenue  amendments  "  of  1781  and  1783  (§  196),  and  the  rates  averaged 
about  1\  per  cent. 

2  About  one  eighth  of  the  foreign  and  one  third  of  the  domestic  debt  con- 
sisted of  unpaid  interest. 

3  Every  one  professed  willingness  to  pay  original  holders  of  the  certificates 
all  that  the  certificates  had  meant  to  them.  Indeed,  Madison,  parting  com- 
pany now  with  Hamilton,  prepared  a  complex  scheme  for  a  commission  to 
pay  off  the  domestic  debt  after  full  inquiry,  paying  original  holders  in  full, 
where  they  still  held  the  paper,  and,  in  other  cases,  paying  the  later  pur- 
chasers whatever  they  had  given  for  the  certificates,  and  giving  the  rest  of 
the  value  to  former  holders.  This  proposal,  perhaps,  was  nearer  abstract 
justice  than  was  Hamilton's ;  but  it  was  too  cumbersome  for  practice. 


HAMILTON'S  MEASURES  345 

ton  and  his  friends  maintained  forcefully  that  no  other  course 
would  establish  national  credit  or  redeem  the  faith  pledged  by 
the  old  Congress  as  the  price  of  Independence ;  and  this  view- 
prevailed.1 

220.  "  Assumption."  —  A  third  part  of  the  funding  scheme 
was  long  in  danger.  Hamilton  wished  the  Federal  government 
to  assume  the  war  debts  of  the  States  (some  twenty -two  millions). 
The  States  that  had  already  paid  their  debts  resented  bitterly 
the  prospect  of  now  having  to  help  pay  also  the  debts  of  other 
States ;  States-rights  men  denied  the  constitutional  right  of 
Congress  to  assume  debts  that  did  not  belong  to  the  whole 
Union;  and  many  patriots  shuddered  at  the  picture  of  the  new- 
born nation  setting  out  under  a  debt  of  seventy-four  millions 
of  dollars.2  After  a  desperate  and  apparently  hopeless  struggle, 
this  feature,  too,  was  carried  by  a  log-rolling  bargain.  Jeffer- 
son was  persuaded  to  secure  two  Virginia  congressmen  for 
"assumption,"  in  return  for  Hamilton's  promise  of  enough 
Northern  votes  to  locate  the  proposed  Capital  on  the  Potomac.3 

1 . 

1  Even  before  Hamilton's  proposals  were  made  public,  his  purpose  seems  to 
have  leaked  out;  and  wealthy  mea  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  hastily- 
started  agents  in  swift-sailing  vessels  for  distant  colonies,  and  on  horseback 
for  back  counties,  to  buy  up  certificates  at  the  prevailing  prices,  before  the 
news  should  arrive.  This  fact  intensified  the  opposition  to  the  plan.  Indeed, 
many  believed  that  Hamilton  himself  was  corruptly  interested  in  this  specu- 
lation. From  this  charge,  happily,  he  can  be  absolutely  acquitted;  but  it 
is  possible  that  he  had  been  careless  in  letting  out  official  secrets  to  less 
scrupulous  friends ;  and  some  members  of  Congress  who  were  to  support  his 
recommendations  strongly  were  among  these  speculators.  Cf.  Maclay's 
Journal,  177-179,  and  elsewhere. 

The  plan,  proposed  by  Hamilton  and  adopted  by  Congress,  offered  to  redeem 
also  the  continental  currency  at  one  cent  on  the  dollar.  Six  millions  of  dollars 
were  so  "  redeemed."     No  more  was  ever  presented. 

2  About  $18  a  head  for  the  population,  or  about  as  much  per  head  as  the 
annual  expenses  of  our  government  in  recent  years. 

3  Exercise.  —  Let  the  student  make  clear  to  himself,  from  the  text,  the 
use  of  the  terms  funding  and  "  assumption."  Is  it  not  clear  why  this  ar- 
rangement between  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  cannot  be  called  a  compromise, 
but  must  be  styled  "  log-rolling  "  ?  Did  Hamilton  actually  pay  off  any  of  the 
debt  of  the  country  ? 


346  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

All  this  was  vigorous  financiering.  American  credit  was 
established  at  a  stroke.  Confidence  returned  at  home.  Money 
came  out  of  hiding,  and  we  entered  upon  an  era  of  business 
prosperity. 

But  it  was  more  than  mere  financiering.  Hamilton  cared  as  much  for 
the  constitutional  and  political  results  as  for  the  financial.  He  saw  clearly 
that  these  measures  would  be  " a  powerful  cement  to  union  "  "by  array- 
ing property  on  the  side  of  the  new  government."  Especially  was  this 
true  of  assumption.  If  that  part  of  the  plan  had  failed,  then  all  holders 
of  State  bonds  would  have  been  inclined  to  oppose  national  taxation  as  a 
hindrance  to  possible  State  taxation  —  whereby  they  themselves  might 
be  paid.  After  ' '  assumption ' '  carried,  all  such  creditors  were  transformed 
into  ardent  advocates  of  the  new  government  and  of  every  extension  of 
its  powers  ;  because  the  stronger  it  grew  and  the  more  it  taxed,  the 
safer  their  own  private  fortunes.  The  commercial  forces  of  the  country  were 
consolidated  behind  the  new  government,  and  pretexts  were  afforded  for  that 
government  to  reach  out  to  the  exercise  of  new  powers.1     (Cf.  §  221.) 

221.  Revenue  :  The  Whisky  Rebellion. —  The  victory  of  "  as- 
sumption "  made  necessary  a  large  revenue.  A  second  part  of 
Hamilton's  plan  dealt  with  this.  In  accord  with  his  recom- 
mendations, duties  were  increased  slightly  on  goods  imported 
from  abroad ;  and,  in  1791,  Congress  imposed  a  heavy  "  excise  n 
on  spirits  distilled  at  home.  To-day  such  an  excise  falls  chiefly 
upon  large  distilleries  run  by  capitalists,  who  pay  the  tax  first 
and  then  collect  it  again  from  the  "  ultimate  consumer  "  in  in- 
creased price.2     But,  in  that  time,  whisky,  a  universal  drink, 

1  Jefferson  soon  regretted  bitterly  his  aid  to  this  centralizing  force,  and 
claimed  that  he  had  been  tricked  by  Hamilton.  "Hamilton's  system,"  said 
he,  "  flowed  from  principles  adverse  to  liberty,  and  was  calculated  to  under- 
mine the  Republic."  And  Maclay  wrote  during  the  contest,  —  "The  Sec- 
retary's people  scarce  disguise  their  design,  which  is  to  create  a  mass  of  debts 
which  will  justify  them  in  seizing  all  the  [rejsources  of  government,  thus 
annihilating  the  State  legislatures  and  creating  an  empire  on  the  basis  of 
consolidation." 

2  Tariffs  and  excises  are  indirect  taxes  (one  external,  the  other  internal) 
paid  in  the  first  instance  by  importer  or  mauufacturer,  but  in  the  end  by 
the  people  who  buy  and  use  the  goods. 


THE  WHISKY  REBELLION  347 

was  manufactured  in  countless  petty  "stills"  scattered  over 
the  country,  especially  in  the  poorer  western  counties,  where  the 
farmer  could  not  market  his  grain  in  any  other  way.1  These 
small  producers  felt  it  a  cruel  hardship  to  have  to  pay  a  tax 
at  all  upon  their  peculiar  product,  particularly  in  advance  of 
marketing  it,  when  currency  was  almost  unknown  among  them; 
and  the  whole  western  section  believed  that  the  Federal  tax 
bore  most  heavily  upon  their  part  of  the  country,  which  was 
least  able  to  bear  taxation. 

Moreover,  an  excise  involves  a  widespread  machinery  of 
inspectors  and  tax-collectors  (very  unlike  a  few  custom  houses 
on  a  frontier)  and  minute  inquiry  into  private  business.  The 
legislatures  of  North  Carolina,  Virginia,  Maryland,  and  Penn- 
sylvania passed  vehement  resolutions  condemning  the  law; 
and  in  four  western  counties  of  Pennsylvania  the  United  States 
officials  were  driven  out  or  set  at  nought  for  three  years,  —  by 
methods  that  make  a  curious  parody  upon  the  methods  toward 
English  officials  in  the  years  before  the  Battle  of  Lexington. 

This  was  the  Whisky  Rebellion.  Finally,  under  Hamilton's 
advice,  Washington  marched  15,000  militia  from  neighboring 
States  into  the  insurgent  counties,  and  obedience  was  restored. 
TJie  most  important  result  of  the  whisky  tax  was  not  the  increased 
revenue,  but  this  constitutional  result,  —  the  demonstration  that 
tlyznew  government  was  able  and  determined  to  enforce  its  laws.2 

222.  National  Bank  and  Implied  Powers.  —  Hamilton  per- 
suaded Congress  also  to  incorporate  a  National  Bank.  The 
government  held  part  of  the  stock,  and  named  some  of  the 


1  A  pack-horse  could  carry  not  more  than  four  bushels  of  grain  ;  but,  re- 
duced to  the  form  of  whisky,  he  could  carry  twenty-four  bushels.  Cf.  §  175 
on  markets  for  Western  settlers.  Western  Pennsylvania  is  said,  alone,  to 
have  had  3000  stills.  The  student  will  know  something  of  the  modern  feeling 
in  the  mountain  districts  of  Southern  States  against  the  excise. 

2  The  Whisky  Rebellion  is  worth  a  special  report.  It  was  the  first  rebellion 
against  the  Federal  government.  (Compare  with  Shays's  Rebellion  against 
a  State.)  Two  leaders  were  tried  for  treason  and  condemned  to  death,  but 
they  were  pardoned  by  Washington.  Happily,  the  nation  has  never  imposed 
a  death  penalty  for  political  opposition. 


348  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

managing  Board.  In  return,  the  Bank  acted  as  the  agent  of 
the  government  in  securing  loans,  and  took  care  of  the  national 
funds.  In  other  respects,  it  was  like  other  banks,  —  receiving 
deposits,  issuing  paper  notes  (which  in  this  case  formed  a  safe 
and  much-needed  currency),  transferring  credits  and  cash  from 
one  part  of  the  country  to  another,1  and  making  loans  on 
suitable  security.2  Banking  facilities  had  been  meager;  and 
the  convenience  of  this  institution  bound  the  commercial  classes 
still  more  closely  to  the  nevj  government. 

The  most  significant  thing  about  the  Bank,  however,  is  that 
its  establishment  led  to  the  -  development  of  the  doctrine  of 
"  implied  powers."  To  create  a  corporation  is  not  among  the 
powers  enumerated  for  Congress.  Indeed,  efforts  to  include 
that  particular  power  had  been  defeated  in  the  Philadelphia 
Convention.  Hamilton,  however,  insisted  that  it  was  covered 
by  the  "  necessary  and  proper  "  clause  (§  204,  b).  "  Necessary," 
he  urged,  meant  only  "  suitable  " ;  and  a  national  bank  would 
be  a  suitable  and  convenient  means  to  carry  out  the  enumerated 
powers  of  borrowing  money  and  caring  for  national  finances. 
After  serious  hesitation,  Washington  signed  the  bill.3 

Exercise.  —  Review  Hamilton's  financial  plan,  making  out  an  abstract 
of  its  various  parts  in  the  form  of  a  "brief."  Review  carefully  §  204  in 
connection  with  §  222. 

III.     SECTIONAL  DISPUTES 

223.  Slavery.  —  The  first  contests  under  the  new  government 
were  sectional.     The  conflicts  upon  assumption,  the  tariff,  and 

1  There  was  a  central  hank  at  Philadelphia,  with  eight  branches  in  leading 
cities. 

2  Enemies  soon  pointed  out  a  danger  that  a  bank  connected  with  the  gov- 
ernment might  exert  tremendous  political  influence  for  the  party  in  power  by 
granting  or  refusing  loans  to  business  men. 

3  He  had  invited  opinions  from  Jefferson  as  well  as  from  Hamilton ;  and 
the  debate  between  the  two  great  Secretaries  began  the  dispute  as  to  "  strict 
construction"  and  "loose"  or  "broad"  construction  of  the  Constitution. 
The  arguments  of  both  are  given  in  full  in  MacDonald's  Select  Documents, 
76-98.  Thirty  years  later,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  affirmed  the  constitutional- 
ity of  a  second  National  Bank  upon  Hamilton's  grounds  (§  280,  6). 


THE   SLAVERY  QUESTION  349 

the  Bank  had  all  been  conflicts  mainly  between  North  and 
South,  —  commercial  section  and  agricultural  section.  This 
unhappy  sectionalism  was  intensified  from  the  first  by  the 
slavery  question. 

In  the  North,  as  far  as  through  Virginia  indeed,  antislavery 
sentiment  was  gradually  growing.  Some  States  had  abolished 
slavery;  others  were  making  arrangements  for  gradual  eman- 
cipation; still  more  had  forbidden  importation  of  more 
slaves  into  their  territory.  In  the  first  session  of  the  First 
Congress,  a  Virginia  Representative  moved  a  national  tax  of 
ten  dollars  a  head  upon  all  slaves  imported  into  any  State. 
After  a  bitter  debate  the  matter  was  dropped.  At  the  next 
session,  petitions  were  presented  from  two  Pennsylvania  socie- 
ties praying  Congress  to  use  its  "  constitutional  powers "  to 
limit  slavery  and  protect  the  Negro.  The  resulting  debate 
was  as  fierce  as  any  in  our  history,  bristling  with  vituperation 
and  with  threats  of  secession  ;  and  the  House  finally  adopted 
resolutions  declaring  that  it  had  no  constitutional  power  to 
interfere  with  the  treatment  of  slaves,  or  to  abolish  slavery, 
within  any  State.1 

The  next  aggressive  move  came  from  the  South  in  a  demand 
for  a  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  in  1793  there  was  passed  a  dis- 
graceful statute.  The  Constitution  sanctioned  slavery  and 
made  it  the  legal  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  the  necessary 
machinery  for  the  capture  and  return  of  fugitive  slaves ;  but 
the  law  should  at  least  have  given  to  any  Negro  claimed  as 
a  slave  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  until  proof  of  the  claim  was 
complete.  The  presumption  should  have  been  in  his  favor. 
Such,  indeed,  was  the  maxim  of  the  Roman  Imperial  law.2 
But  this  American  law  followed  rather  the  medieval  maxim 
that  a  masterless  man  must  belong  to  some  master.  It  was 
a  base  surrender  of  human  rights  to  property  rights.     It  as- 

1  Mild  statements  were  made  as  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  secure  decent 
treatment  of  slaves  in  slave-ships  on  the  high  seas,  but  no  action  along  this 
line  was  suggested. 

2  Ancient  World,  §  535. 


350  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

sumed  that  the  claim  of  a  pretended  master  zvas  good  unless  dis- 
proved by  evidence.  No  jury  trial  was  provided,  and  a  free 
Negro,  seized  in  a  strange  locality,  might  easily  find  it  impos- 
sible to  adduce  proof  of  his  freedom,  —  especially  as  the  law 
failed  to  provide  securities  as  to  summoning  witnesses.  Every- 
thing was  left  to  the  judge,  while  a  crushing  fine  was  provided 
for  any  citizen  aiding  a  Negro  who  might  prove  to  be  an 
escaped  slave.  In  every  detail  the  presumption  of  the  law  was 
against  the  Negro. 

In  a  more  enlightened  age  the  courts  would  have  held  the  law  uncon- 
stitutional, since  it  neither  provided  securities  for  the  accused  in  criminal 
cases  (if  the  claim  that  a  Negro  was  an  escaped  slave  constituted  a  crimi- 
nal case)  nor  insured  the  jury  trial  guaranteed  by  the  seventh  amend- 
ment in  civil  cases.  But  law,  after  all,  is  merely  what  the  courts, 
sustained  by  public  opinion,  declare  it  to  be.  This  abominable  statute 
was  sustained  by  American  courts,  and,  under  its  sanction,  gangs  of  kid- 
napers could,  and  sometimes  did,  carry  off  free  men  to  a  horrible  slavery. 
After  some  fifty  years  (in  the  famous  Prigg  v.  Pennsylvania  case)  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  nation  definitely  upheld  the  constitutionality  of  the 
law,  except  as  to  the  provision  requiring  State  officials  to  act  as  Federal 
officers  in  carrying  it  out  (1842).  The  more  active  public  opinion  of  the 
forties  took  advantage  of  this  leak  to  undermine  the  operation  of  the 
law.1  Then  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850  (§347)  merely  reenacted 
the  old  abuses  with  more  efficient  machinery,  i.e.  with  special  Federal 
commissioners  to  enforce  them. 


224.  Expansion  by  Sections.  —  The  reunion  of  the  old  thir- 
teen -States  was  completed  by  the  ratification  of  the  Constitu- 
tion in  North  Carolina  (November,  1789)  and  in  Rhode  Island 
(1790).  Almost  at  the  same  time  began  the  expansion  of  the 
Union  through  the  admission  of  new  States,  —  Vermont  in 
1791,  and  Kentucky  in  1792.  Toward  the  close  of  the  Fed- 
eralist period,  Tennessee  was  admitted  (1796);  and  in  1802, 
early  in  the  following  period,  Ohio  came  in  (§  184).  Regard- 
ing these  new  States,  three  matters  call  for  consideration  — 
one  bad,  two  good. 

1  In  some  parts  of  the  Union  public  opinion  made  the  law  inoperative  from 
the  first.    In  1793  a  slave  was  rescued  from  pursuers  in  Massachusetts. 


EXPANSION  351 

a.  Sectionalism.  Of  the  original  thirteen  States,  seven 
were  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line;  but  some  of  these 
were  still  slaveholding  States,  so  that  the  Slave  and  Free 
sections  were  not  unequal.  The  bills  permitting  the  admis- 
sion of  Kentucky  and  Vermont  were  passed  within  a  few  days 
of  each  other,  and  the  action  was  consciously  designed  to  main- 
tain the  balance,  —  especially  in  the  Senate,  —  between  the  forces 
for  and  against  slavery.  This  policy  long  continued ;  and  the 
division  of  opinion  in  the  North  gave  a  practical  advantage  to 
the  Slave  States. 

b.  Democracy.  Both  Kentucky  and  Vermont  gave  the  fran- 
chise to  all  White  males  twenty-one  years  of  age  ;  and  though 
Tennessee  and  Ohio  failed  to  go  so  far,  still  they  also  were 
much  more  democratic  than  the  older  States.  TJie  admission 
of  neiv  Western  States  began  at  once  to  change  the  political  com- 
plexion of  the  Union  in  the  direction  of  greater  democracy. 

c.  Nationality,  Quite  as  important  at  that  time  was  the 
impulse  to  nationality.  Unlike  the  original  thirteen  States, 
the  new  commonwealths  had  never  known  political  existence 
as  sovereign  bodies.1  They  were  the  children  of  the  Union, 
created  by  it  and  fostered  by  it;  and,  after  admission,  the 
tendency  to  nationality  was  stronger  within  their  borders  than 
—  other  conditions  being  the  same  —  within  the  original 
States.  Probably  the  most  powerful  single  force  in  our  his- 
tory on  the  side  of  union  has  been  this  addition  of  the  many 
new  States  carved  out  of  the  national  domain.     Left  to  itself, 

the  union  of  the  original  States,  with  their  traditions  of  State  >' 

sovereignty,  could  hardly  have  lasted  half  a  century.  7^\^- 

IV.     RISE   OF   POLITfCAL   PARTIES 

225.  The  Elements.  —  The  early  years  of  Washington's 
administration  saw   no  political   parties,    in  any   true    sense. 

1  Ohio  was  the  only  new  State  of  this  period  to  which  these  words  apply  in 
the  strictest  sense,  hut  this  is  the  place  to  note  the  beginning  of  this  new 
force  in  American  life.  The  physiographic  reasons  for  greater  national  feel- 
ing in  the  new  States  are  suggested  in  §  244. 


352  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  had  closed  the  first  contest 
between  national  parties.  The  Federalists  were  left,  almost 
without  opposition,  to  organize  the  government  they  had  estab- 
lished;1 and,  within  a  few  months,  party  lines  were  wiped 
out. 

But  elements  were  present  for  new  divisions.  Men  soon 
found  themselves  for  or  against  government  policies  according 
to  their  varying  inclination  to  (1)  aristocracy  or  democracy, 
(2)  commercial  or  agricultural  interests,  (3)  a  strong  or  a  weak 
government,  and  (4)  English  or  French  sympathies.  These 
divergent  views,  too,  had  a  logical  grouping.  The  commercial 
interests  wished  a  strong  central  government  (§  206),  and 
favored  England  because  our  commerce  was  mainly  with  that 
country.2  In  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution,  —  which  had 
now  begun,  —  England  stood  for  the  old  order,  against  demo- 
cratic France ;  and  so  these  commercial  ^interests,  already  in- 
clined to  aristocracy,  received  an  added  impulse  in  that 
direction.  On  the  other  hand,  the  democratic  portion  of 
society  found  its  chief  strength  in  agricultural  districts  ;  re- 
tained its  Revolutionary  hatred  for  England,  and  was  fervently 
attached  to  France  (formerly  our  ally  and  now  the  European 
champion  of  democracy);  and,  according  to  universal  demo- 
cratic feeling  in  that  day,  looked  with  distrust  upon  any  strong 
government. 

226.  New  Parties.  —  Hamilton  stood  for  the  aristocratic,  pro- 
English  tendency;    Jefferson  for  the  democratic,  pro-French 


1  It  is  sometimes  said  that  Washington  tried  to  reconcile  the  two  old  parties 
and  so  appointed  to  his  Cabinet  two  leaders  from  the  Antif ederalists,  —  Jef- 
ferson and  Randolph.  This  is  absurd.  Jefferson  had  criticized  the  Consti- 
tution,—  though  less  severely  than  Hamilton  had,  —  but  he  had  used  his 
influence  for  its  ratification ;  and,  though  Randolph  refused  to  sign  the  final 
draft  of  the  Constitution  at  Philadelphia,  he  had,  afterward,  in  the  Virginia 
convention  been  one  of  the  chief  leaders  for  ratification.  The  Cabinet  repre- 
sented merely  the  different  wings  of  the  old  Federalist  party. 

2  After  the  Revolution  almost  as  exclusively  as  before, — which  suggests 
that  the  English  navigation  acts  had  not  in  great  measure  diverted  colonial 
commerce  from  its  natural  channels. 


NEW  PARTIES  353 

view.  Soon  the  two  were  contending  in  the  Cabinet,  as 
Jefferson  puts  it,  "  like  cocks  in  a  pit." '  By  1792  these  diver- 
gent views  in  the  country  at  large  had  crystallized  into  new 
political  parties,  —  especially  because  of  the  feeling  regarding 
Hamilton's  financial  policy.  Jefferson  believed  that  that  policy, 
if  not  checked,  would  result  in  monarchy,  and  he  called  his 
own  party  "Republican"  by  contrast.  His  opponents  tried  to 
discredit  it  by  stigmatizing  it  "  Democratic."  Hamilton's  new 
party  shrewdly  took  the  old  name  "  Federalist." 

Jefferson  first  uses  the  term  ' '  Republican  "  in  a  party  sense  in  a  letter 
to  Washington  (May,  1792):  "The  Republican  party  among  us,  who 
wish  to  preserve  the  government  in  its  present  form.  ..."  Years  later, 
he  affirmed,  "The  real  differences  .  .  .  consisted  in  their  different  de- 
grees of  inclination  to  Monarchy  or  Republicanism";  and  again,  "A 
short  review  .  .  .  will  show  that  the  contests  of  that  day  were  contests  of 
principle  between  the  adherents  of  republican  and  of  kingly  government." 

The  new  parties  were  in  no  sense  continuations  of  those  of  1 787-1 788. 
Men  were  aligned  anew,  on  new  issues,  after  an  interval  when  party 
organization  and  party  names  had  been  dropped.  Madison  became  a 
Republican ;  Patrick  Henry  and  Luther  Martin  joined  the  new  Federalists. 
It  is  true,  however,  that  the  Republicans  were  reproached  with  receiving 
into  their  ranks  the  greater  part  of  the  former  Antif ederalists,  —  as  the 
Federalists  were  denounced  for  receiving  the  Tories. 

Unhappily,  from  the  beginning,  the  party  lines  were  largely  sectional. 
The  North,  especially  New  England,  was  mainly  Federalist ;  the  South 
was  predominantly  Republican.2 

227.   Working  of  Parties  in  Elections :     Caucus  Nominations.  — 

Washington  was  a  Federalist,  but  his  fairness  and  patriotism 
so  exalted  him  that  the  Kepublicans  were  unwilling  to  oppose 
his  reelection.  In  1793  he  again  received  every  electoral  vote, 
while  Adams  became  Vice  President  again  by  77  votes  to  50 
for  George  Clinton.  The  Republicans  were  fatally  handi- 
capped in  their  canvass  for  Clinton  by  their  lack  of  a  candi- 

1  By  1793  both  men  had  resigned.  Hamilton  was  never  again  to  hold  office, 
but  he  continued  to  direct  his  party's  policy  in  great  degree. 

2  Explain  this  fact  from  the  occupations  of  the  two  sections. 


354  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

date  of  their  own  for  the  presidency ;  but  they  secured  a  strong 
majority  in  the  new  House  of  Representatives. 

Washington  refused  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  third  term.1 
Then,  in  1796,  came  a  party  contest.  The  Federalist  members 
of  Congress  in  caucus2  nominated  Adams  and  Thomas  Pinck- 
ney.  Republican  Congressmen  nominated  Jefferson.  Adams 
won  by  three  votes.     Jefferson  became  Vice  President. 

Before  the  Twelfth  Amendment,  each  elector  voted  for  two  names 
without  designating  one  for  President,  one  for  Vice  President.  If  all 
Federalist  electors  had  voted  for  both  their  candidates,  there  would  have 
been  no  choice  for  first  place.  To  prevent  this  result,  several  Federalist 
electors  threw  away  their  second  votes,  so  that  Pinckney  (on  the  winning 
ticket)  received  fewer  votes  than  Jefferson  (on  the  other).  The  con- 
sequence was  absurd, — President  and  Vice  President  from  hostile 
parties. 

228.  Excursus:  Party  government  was  still  a  new  thing  in 
the  world.  The  men  who  made  the  Constitution  did  not 
dream  of  permanent  parties,  or  they  thought  of  them  only  as  a 

1  Washington's  noble  "  Farewell  Address  "  warned  his  countrymen  against 
11  entangling  alliances  "  abroad  and  sectional  divisions  at  home.  It  should  be 
read  by  all  students. 

2  It  had  become  customary,  just  before,  for  members  of  each  party  in  a 
State  legislature  to  "  caucus,"  in  order  to  nominate  candidates  for  State 
offices.  This  device  was  now  seized  upon  for  national  nominations.  Of 
course  it  rendered  nugatory  at  once  the  intention  of  the  Constitution  as  to  the 
deliberation  of  the  electors  and  their  "refining"  the  popular  will.  It  re- 
mained for  them  only  to  follow  the  "  recommendation  "  of  the  party  caucus. 
This  matter  illustrates  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  failed  to  foresee  or  pro- 
vide for  party  government.     (Cf.  §  228.) 

The  nominating  "  caucus,"  self-appointed,  originated  in  town  government. 
John  Adams  has  left  the  earliest  account  of  it  as  it  appeared  in  Boston 
(Diary  for  February,  1773) :  "This  day  I  learned  that  the  caucus  club  meets  at 
certain  times  in  the  garret  of  Tom  Dawes.  ...  He  has  a  large  house,  and  he 
has  a  movable  partition  in  his  garret,  which  he  takes  down,  and  the  whole 
club  meets  in  one  room.  There  they  smoke  tobacco  till  you  cannot  see  from 
one  end  of  the  room  to  the  other.  There  they  drink  flip,  I  suppose,  and  there 
they  choose  a  moderator,  who  puts  questions  to  vote  regularly ;  and  select- 
men, assessors,  collectors,  firewards,  and  representatives  are  regularly  chosen 
before  they  are  chosen  by  the  town."  It  was  his  control  over  this  caucus 
which  made  Samuel  Adams  for  so  long  the  "boss "  of  Boston. 


NEW  PARTIES  355 

dreaded  possibility.1  The  Constitution  makes  no  provision  for 
the  chief  force  which  was  to  run  it,  —  which  is  a  chief  reason  why 
our  unwritten  constitution  has  come  to  be  so  different  from  the 
written  document. 

Government  by  party  seems  to  be  most  wholesome  when 
party  lines  "correspond  in  fair  degree  to  the  natural  differences 
between  conservatives  and  progressives  in  society.  One  portion 
of  society  sees  most  clearly  the  present  good  and  the  possible 
dangers  in  change,  and  feels  that  to  maintain  existing  advan- 
tages is  more  important  than  to  try  for  new  ones.  Another 
section  sees  most  clearly  the  existing  evils  and  the  possible 
gain  in  change,  and  feels  that  to  try  to  improve  conditions,  even 
at  the  risk  of  experiment,  is  more  important  than  merely  to 
preserve  existing  good.  Each  party  draws  its  strength  from 
some  of  the  noblest  and  some  of  the  basest  of  human  qualities. 
The  true  reformer  will  find  himself  associated  with  reckless 
adventurers'and  self-seeking  demagogues  ;  while  the  thoughtful 
conservative,  struggling  to  preserve  society  from  harmful  rev- 
olution, will  find  much  of  his  support  in  the  inertia,  selfishness, 
and  stupidity  of  comfortable  respectability,  and  in  the  greed  of 
"  special  privilege."  "  Stupidity  is  naturally  Tory n  ;  but 
"Folly  is  naturally  Liberal."2 

The  term  party  government  applies  to  countries  where  the  people  are 
divided  into  political  parties,  and  the  party  with  the  most  votes  back  of  it 
controls  the  course  of  government.  This  system  was  developed  in  Eng- 
land, but  in  very  imperfect  fashion  preceding  the  nineteenth  century. 

1  Said  John  Adams,  in  October,  1792 :  "  There  is  nothing  which  I  dread  so 
much  as  the  division  of  the  Republic  into  two  great  parties,  each  under  its 
leader,  concerting  measures  in  opposition  to  each  other.  This,  in  my  humble 
apprehension,  is  to  be  feared  as  the  greatest  political  evil  under  our  Constitu- 
tion." Jefferson,  on  the  other  hand,  foresaw  dimly  the  inevitableness  of 
party  divisions,  "  founded,"  as  he  said,  "  in  the  nature  of  man." 

2  This  paragraph  is  condensed  roughly  from  a  notable  and  much  longer 
passage  in  Lecky's  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  (I,  513-515).  Colonel 
Higginson  had  the  final  quotation  in  mind  probably,  when  he  wrote  of  these 
first  American  political  parties,  "  Some  men  became  Federalists  because 
they  were  high-minded,  and  some  because  they  were  narrow-minded;  while 
the  more  far-sighted  and  also  the  less  scrupulous  became  Republicans." 


356  FEDERALIST  ORGANIZATION 

(Cf.  Modem  History,  §  252.)  To-day  it  is  the  mark  of  free  government 
in  all  large  units.  One  of  its  characteristics  is  moderation,  because  the 
shifting  of  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total  vote  will  usually  displace 
the  ruling  party.  In  America  the  check  of  parties  has  replaced,  for 
most  useful  purposes,  the  elaborate  system  of  checks  devised  by  the  Phila- 
delphia Convention. 

229.  Party  Feeling.  —  It  took  a  generation  for  men  to  learn 
that  political  difference  did  not  necessarily  mean  moral  vicious- 
ness.  Jefferson  suspected  his  adversaries  of  plotting  against 
the  Republic  (§  226)  ;  and,  still  more  absurdly,  they  accused  him 
of  wishing  to  subvert  all  society —  in  the  interest  of  bloody 
anarchy  or  at  least  of  a  general  proscription  of  property. 

Jefferson  claimed  to  have  heard  Hamilton  say  that  the  Constitution 
was  a  "shilly-shally  thing,  of  mere  milk  and  water,  which  could  not  last 
and  was  good  only  as  a  step  to  something  better.''''  Almost  at  his  death, 
Hamilton  did  write  of  the  Constitution:  "Contrary  to" all  my  antici- 
pations of  its  fate,  as  you  know,  I  am  still  trying  to  prop  the  frail 
and  worthless  fabric ' '  (Works,  Lodge  ed.,  VII,  591).  Such  expressions 
were  common  among  the  Federalist  leaders.  Knowing  Hamilton's  ad- 
miration for  the  British  form  of  government,  it  is  not  wholly  amazing 
that  Jefferson  understood  his  ' '  something  better "  to  be  that  type  of 
monarchy.  This,  however,  was  unjust  to  Hamilton.  He  knew  that  mon- 
archy was  impossible  in  America.  The  truth  seems  to  be  (1)  that,  in 
optimistic  hours,  he  hoped  to  make  the  Constitution  into  "something 
better  "  through  growth  and  interpretation  ; *  but  (2)  that,  in  moments  of 
despair,  he  expected  the  Union  to  fail,  as  the  old  Confederation  had  failed, 
—  to  be  replaced,  possibly,  by  a  still  stronger  government,  after  internal 
convulsion  and  civil  war.2 

The  real  fault  of  the  Federalist  leaders  was  their  fundamental  disbelief 
in  popular  government.     (Cf.  also  §  200.)     After  Jefferson's  victory  in 

1  In  later  years,  Madison  characterized  the  division  of  parties  more  fairly : 
Hamilton,  said  he,  "  wished  to  administer  the  government  into  what  he  thought 
it  ought  to  be;  while  the  Republicans  wished  to  keep  it  in  conformity  to  its 
meaning  as  understood  by  the  men  who  adopted  it." 

2  There  is  ground  for  thinking  that  Hamilton's  desire  to  keep  himself 
available  for  military  leadership  in  such  an  anticipated  struggle  was  his 
reason  for  not  declining  the  duel  in  which  Burr  killed  him. 


PARTY  FEELING  357 

1800,1  this  feeling  found  its  most  violent  expression.  Fisher  Ames,  a 
Boston  idol,  declared  s  "  Our  country  is  too  big  for  union,  too  sordid  for 
patriotism,  too  democratic  for  liberty.  ...  Its  vice  will  govern  it.  .  .  . 
This  is  ordained  for  democracies."  Cabot,  another  Massachusetts  leader, 
declared,  "  We  are  democratic  altogether,  and  I  hold  democracy,  in  its 
natural  operation,  to  be  the  government  of  the  worst."  And  Hamilton 
is  reported  to  have  exclaimed,  pounding  the  table  with  clenched  fist: 
"  The  people,  sir  !     Your  people  is  a  great  beast." 

Dennie's  Portfolio,  the  chief  literary  publication  of  the  time,  railed 
at  greater  length:  "Democracy  ...  is  on  trial  here,  and  the  issue  will 
be  civil  war,  desolation,  and  anarchy.  No  wise  man  but  discerns  its  im- 
perfections ;  no  good  man  but  shudders  at  its  miseries ;  no  honest  man 
but  proclaims  its  fraud  ;  and  no  brave  man  but  draws  his  sword  against 
its  force.  The  institution  of  a  scheme  of  policy  so  radically  contemptible 
and  vicious,  ..."  etc.  And  Theodore  D wight  of  Connecticut  (brother 
of  the  President  of  Yale  College),  in  a  Fourth  of  July  oration,  asserted  : 
" The  great  object  of  Jacobinism2  ...  is  to  destroy  every  trace  of  civili- 
zation in  the  world,  and  force  mankind  back  into  a  savage  state.  .  .  . 
We  have  a  country  governed  by  blockheads  and  knaves  ;  the  ties  of  mar- 
riage are  severed  and  destroyed ;  our  wives  and  daughters  are  thrown 
into  the  stews  ;  our  children  are  cast  into  the  world  from  the  breast  and 
forgotten ;  filial  piety  is  extinguished  ;  and  our  surnames,  the  only  mark 
of  distinction  among  families,  are  abolished.  Can  the  imagination  paint 
anything  more  dreadful  on  this  side  hell?"  In  one  Connecticut  town, 
while  Jefferson  was  President,  a  much-applauded  Fourth  of  July  toast  ran  : 
"Thomas  Jefferson,  may  he  receive  from  his  fellow-citizens  the  reward 
of  his  merit  —  a  halter. ' ' 

It  was  one  step  more  from  such  twaddle  to  suspect  Jefferson  and  his 
friends  of  designs  upon  the  property  or  the  life  of  Federalist  leaders. 
Gouverneur  Morris'  diary  for  1804  contains  the  passage  :  "Wednesday, 
January  18,  I  dined  at  [Rufus]  King's  with  General  Hamilton.  .  .  . 
They  were  both  alarmed  at  the  conduct  of  our  rulers,  and  think  the 
Constitution  about  to  be  overthrown  :  I  think  it  already  overthrown. 
They  apprehend  a  bloody  anarchy :  I  apprehend  an  anarchy  in  which 
property,  not  lives,  will  be  sacrificed."  With  possibly  some  humorous 
exaggeration,    Fisher  Ames   wrote:  "My  health   is  good  for  nothing, 


1  Caution.  —  The  student  must  not  forget  that  the  following  expressions 
were  spoken  a  few  years  later  than  the  words  of  Jefferson  with  which  they 
are  contrasted. 

2  A  term  borrowed  from  the  French  Revolution,  and  applied  to  the  Repub- 
licans by  their  opponents. 


358  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

but  ...  if  the  Jacobins  make  haste,  I  may  yet  live  to  be  hanged," 
And  Pickering,  another  New  England  leader,  expatiates  at  length  on  the 
danger  to  himself  and  his  friends  from  "  the  revenge,  the  malice,  the 
ambition,  the  rapacity  of  the  [Republican]  leaders"  ;  and  in  a  letter  to 
Rufus  King  he  writes:  "  I  am  disgusted  with  the  men  who  now  rule,  and 
with  their  measures.  At  some  manifestations  of  their  malignancy,  I  am 
shocked.  The  cowardly  wretch  at  their  head,  while,  like  a  Parisian 
Revolutionary  monster,  prating  about  humanity,  would  feel  an  infernal 
pleasure  in  the  utter  destruction  of  his  opponents."  More  briefly,  Fisher 
Ames  referred  to  Jefferson  and  Gallatin  as  ' '  knaves  and  cold-thinking 
villains."  * 

V.     FOREIGN   RELATIONS 

Within  a  week  of  Washington's  first  inauguration,  the  French  Revolu- 
tion began.  Soon  that  tremendous  movement  involved  all  Europe  in 
war.2  Even  the  new-born  American  nation  had  only  four  years  of  quiet, 
in  which  to  attend  to  pressing  domestic  concerns,  before  it  too  was  drawn 
into  complicated  and  troublesome  foreign  questions.  These  complica- 
tions were  to  absorb  a  great  part  of  American  energy,  and  to  vitally 
affect  the  course  of  American  development,  for  twenty  years,  closing 
with  a  great  war.  During  the  first  part  of  that  period  (the  remaining 
eight  years  of  Federalist  rule)  they  fall  into  four  chapters  (§§  230-233). 

230.  Relations  with  France,  to  1795.  —  Popular  sympathy 
went  out  enthusiastically  to  the  French  Republic  in  its  des- 
perate struggle  against  the  "coalized  despots."  Everywhere 
in  America  there  broke  forth  a  rage  for  "civic  feasts"  and 
"Democratic  clubs,"  and  loud  demands  were  voiced  that  we 
return  to  France,  in  her  need,  the  aid  we  had  received  from 
her  shortly  before  in  our  own  Revolution.  But  on  receiving 
news  of  war  between  France  and  England,  in  the  spring  of 
1793,  Washington  called  together  his  Cabinet  (§  215),  and, 
with   its   unanimous   approval,  determined  upon   his  famous 

1  The  real  differences  of  opinion  are  suggested  more  fairly,  perhaps,  in  a 
letter  from  Samuel  Adams  to  John  Adams  (November  25,  1790) :  "  A  Republic, 
you  tell  me,  is  a  government  in  which  the  People  have  an  essential  share  in 
the  Sovereignty.  Is  not  the  whole  Sovereignty,  my  friend,  essentially  in  the. 
People?  " 

2  Modern  History,  §§  329-343,-  especially  §§  337,  313, 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  359 

"Neutrality  Proclamation."  This  document  is  one  of  our 
greatest  state  papers.  Coming  at  that  critical  time,  it  went 
far  toward  starting  America  upon  a  century-long  policy  of 
wise  separation  from  Old- World  quarrels.1 

Washington  had  no  authority  to  fix  the  policy  of  the  nation.  That 
belongs  to  Congress.  Accordingly,  the  proclamation  did  not  declare  that 
the  United  States  would  remain  neutral.  It  did  not  even  use  the  word. 
But  it  did  refer  effectively  to  the  duties  and  advantages  of  neutrality 
for  America,  and  was  really  a  stately  recommendation  of  such  a  policy. 
Public  opinion  soon  pronounced  overwhelmingly  for  the  policy  so  recom- 
mended, and  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  established  by  the  informal 
mandate  of  the  people. 

For  a  moment,  however,  the  proclamation  drew  upon 
Washington  loud  abuse.  Moreover,  the  new  French  minister, 
"  Citizen"  Genet,  attempted  to  disregard  it,  by  using  American 
ports  for  French  privateers,  as  if  they  had  been  ports  of  an 
allied  country.  In  this  and  other  attempts  to  embroil  us  with 
England,  he  had  much  popular  sympathy.  At  last,  however, 
Genet  even  threatened  to  appeal  openly  from  the  government 
to  the  people.  American  feeling  rebelled  at  such  presump- 
tuous interference  by  a  representative  of  a  foreign  power;  and 
the  Administration  was  generally  supported  when  it  demanded 
that  France  recall  its  minister. 

231.  English  relations  were  complicated  by  (1)  unfulfilled 
conditions  of  the  treaty  of  1783;    (2)  our  desire  for  trading 

1  In  Washington's  day  that  policy  was  particularly  wholesome,  because 
we  could  enter  European  politics  only  as  the  tail  to  the  French  or  English 
kite.  Foreigners  observed  among  us  "many  adherents  of  France,  and  some 
of  England,  but  few  advocates  of  an  American  policy."  Washington's  policy, 
persisted  in  for  generations,  gave  us  time  to  free  ourselves  from  this  degrad- 
ing "colonialism."  Francis  A.  Walker's  passage  in  this  connection  deserves 
to  be  quoted  in  full:  "Colonialism  is  the  disposition  ...  to  look  abroad 
for  standards  of  thought,  action,  or  manners;  not  to  be  satisfied  with  the 
approbation  of  its  own  taste,  judgment,  or  conscience.  .  .  .  Colonialism, 
which  ...  is  simply  want  of  self-respect  in  a  community,  was  the  curse  of 
our  earlier  politics  as  it  was  of  our  earlier  society.  The  States  which  had 
become  independent  in  government  were  still  unduly  dependent  in  thought 
and  feeling  upon  the  old  World.  ..." 


360  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

privileges  which  we  had  enjoyed  as  colonies  but  had  lost  when 
we  took  ourselves  out  of  the  British  Empire ;  and  (3)  different 
views  of  international  law *  regarding  the  rights  of  neutrals  in 
the  great  European  war  (a,  b,  c,  below). 

a.  England  still  held  our  "  Northwest  posts,"  and  had  made 
no  compensation  for  slaves  carried  to  freedom  by  her  troops, 
while  American  pre-Revolutionary  debts  to  Englishmen  were 
still  unpaid  (§  162).  Moreover,  indefinite  terms  in  the  treaty 
left  an  uncertain  boundary  line  on  the  extreme  Northeast 
(§  232). 

b.  England's  "navigation  acts"  now  shut  our  trade  from 
her  West  Indies,  just  as  if  we  had  been  Dutchmen  or  Spaniards. 
But  that  trade  was  more  vitally  important  to  us  than  to  Euro- 
pean countries,  and  it  was  essential  to  the  English  colonies 
(§  131).  British  governors  had  already  found  themselves  forced 
at  times  to  suspend  the  restrictions  and  invite  American  ships 
to  the  islands',  to  avoid  famine ;  while  at  other  times  much 
smuggling  was  carried  on.  We  clamored  for  regular  trading 
privileges  with  the  islands. 

c.  The  English  navy  was  trying  to  conquer  France  by  shut- 
ting off  foreign  commerce.  England  looked  upon  our  trade 
with  France  as  an  aid  to  the  military  resistance  of  that  power. 
We  regarded  England's  restrictions  upon  that  trade  as  inter- 
ference with  neutral  rights.     Five  points  here  were  in  dispute. 

(1)  Supreme  on  the  sea,  England  declared  the  French  coast  under 
"blockade."  This  meant  that  an  English  war  vessel  might  seize,  any- 
where on  the  sea,  a  neutral  ship  whose  official  papers  showed  her  bound 
for  a  "blockaded"  port.  America  insisted  that  a  blockade  did  not  de- 
serve recognition  unless  a  blockading  fleet  actually  lay  off  each  harbor,  so 
as  to  make  entrance  practically  impossible.     We  called  the  English  meas- 

1  International  law  is  not  law,  but  custom  which  has  won  general  approval, 
and  which  defines  how  nations  are  expected  to  act  toward  one  another  under 
given  conditions.  This  body  of  custom  has  grown  more  definite,  and  has 
changed  greatly,  during  the  past  century ;  but  many  of  the  points  then  in  dis- 
pute between  England  and  America  are  still  unsettled.  On  the  whole,  how- 
ever, America  stood  for  an  advanced  interpretation,  and  her  contentions  have 
gained  ground,  —  to  the  gain  of  ourselves  and  the  world. 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  361 

ure  a  "  paper  blockade."  England  soon  modified  it,  to  apply  only  to  the 
French  coast  along  the  Channel,  which  a  fleet  at  each  entrance  could 
close  effectively;  but  we  were  not  content.1 

(2)  France  began  (May,  1793)  seizing  American  ships  bound  to  Eng- 
land with  foodstuffs,  on  the  ground  that  such  cargo  was  "contraband." 
England  gladly  followed  this  example,  —  offering  payment,  it  is  true,  for 
the  food  seized.     We  held  that  only  military  supplies  were  contraband.2 

(3)  England  captured  neutral  vessels  bound  even  to  an  unblockaded 
port,  if  they  carried  goods  belonging  to  citizens  of  a  country  with  which 
she  was  at  war.     America  claimed,  "  Free  ships  make  free  goods.'''' 3 

(4)  In  time  of  peace,  French  "navigation  acts"  shut  foreign  trade 
from  the  French  West  Indies.  During  the  French  and  Indian  War,  un- 
able to  carry  on  trade  with  these  colonies  herself  because  of  England's 
fleet,  France  had  suspended  her  restrictions,  inviting  neutral  nations  to 
do  her  carrying  for  her.  England  then  proclaimed  "  The  Bule  of  1756" 
—  namely,  that  commerce  which  France  would  not  permit  with  French 
colonies  in  peace,  England  would  not  permit  in  war.  Now  France  had 
again  opened  her  island  trade  to  neutrals,  and  England  again  announced 
her  llule  of  '56. 

(5)  More  serious  than  any  of  these  matters,  to  our  eyes  to-day,  was 
the  seizure  of  American  seamen, — though  at  the  time  it  awoke  far  less 
protest  than  the  seizure  of  property.  England  had  always  recruited 
sailors  for  her  men-of-war  by  the  press  gang  ;  and  —  so  essential  was  the 
war  navy  —  English  courts  had  always  refused  to  interfere.  Great  num- 
bers of  British  seamen  deserted  now  to  secure  better  wages  and  better 
conditions  on  American  merchant  ships  ;  and  they  were  often  protected 
by  fraudulent  papers  of  "citizenship,"  easily  secured  in  American  ports. 
English  vessels  claimed  the  right  to  search  American  ships  and  take  back 

!The  modern  understanding  of  blockade  is  more  nearly  in  accord  with 
this  final  English  position  than  with  the  rigid  American  claim,  — which  indeed 
we  abandoned  in  our  blockade  of  the  Southern  ports  in  the  Civil  War.  Paper 
blockades  are  not  recognized  by  international  law. 

2  The  Russian-Japanese  War  proved  that  this  is  still  a  vexed  question. 
Food  for  an  army,  or  for  a  besieged  town,  comes  under  the  head  of  military 
supplies.  And  if  England  to-day  were  at  war,  and  should  lose  command  of 
the  sea,  there  is  no  doubt  her  enemies  would  try  to  starve  her  into  submission 
by  shutting  out  American  food. 

3  This  maxim  had  been  set  up  by  Holland  in  1650,  and  agreed  to  by  north- 
ern European  nations  in  1780,  except  for  England's  opposition.  War  on  land 
has  long  recognized,  in  considerable  degree,  that  private  property  should  be 
taken  by  a  hostile  army  only  as  a  necessary  war  measure,  not  merely  for 
plunder.  At  sea,  this  civilizing  doctrine  has  made  slower  progress,  and  pirati- 
cal customs  have  continued. 


362  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

such  sailors.  Then  the  practice  was  extended  to  the  impressment  of 
other  British  subjects  found  there,  and  even  to  those  who  had  been  legally 
"naturalized"  by  American  law.1  Worse  still,  in  irritation  at  the 
American  encouragement  to  their  deserters,  English  officers  sometimes 
impressed  born  Americans,  either  by  mistake  or  by  set  purpose. 

The  "  right  of  search  "  exists.  In  time  of  war,  a  war  vessel  of  either 
power  may  stop  and  search  a  neutral  trading  vessel  on  the  high  seas  to 
ascertain  (1)  whether  it  really  is  a  neutral  vessel  as  its  flag  proclaims  ; 
(2)  whether  it  is  bound  for  any  blockaded  port ;  (3)  whether  it  carries 
"  contraband."  If  strong  presumption  is  found  against  the  vessel  on  any 
of  these  points,  it  may  be  carried  to  a  "prize  court "  for  trial,  and  if  ad- 
judged guilty,  it  becomes  "lawful  prize."  But  no  "right  of  search" 
applies  to  seizing  people ;  and  the  "right"  must  always  be  exercised 
with  discretion  and  without  unduly  embarrassing  neutral  trade. 

All  England's  vicious  practices  were  carried  out  by  other 
European  belligerents  also ;  but  England's  navy  was  the  only 
one  able  to  injure  us  seriously.  As  scores  of  American  vessels 
with  valuable  cargoes  were  swept  into  British  prize  courts, 
American  feeling  rose  to  war  heat.  In  the  spring  of  1794 
Congress  laid  a  temporary  embargo  upon  all  American  shipping 
( that  it  might  not  be  caught  at  sea,  without  warning,  by  the 
expected  war),  and  threatened  to  seize  all  moneys  in  America 
due  British  creditors,  to  offset  British  seizures  of  American 
ships.     This  would  have  meant  war. 

That  disaster  was  averted  only  by  the  calm  resolution  of 
Washington.  He  appointed  John  Jay  special  envoy  to  negoti- 
ate with  England ;  and  in  November,  1794,  "  Jay's  Treaty " 
was  ready  for  ratification.  By  its  terms,  impressment  was  not 
mentioned  nor  blockade  defined.  England  had  her  way,  too,  as 
to  contrabrand  and  neutral  ships  ;  but  she  agreed  to  vacate  the 
Northwest  posts,  to  open  to  American  trade  her  West  India 
ports  under  certain  restrictions,2  and  to  make  compensation  to 

1  England  denied  the  right  of  an*  Englishman  to  change  his  allegiance. 
"  Once  an  Englishman,  always  an  Englishman."  The  American  contention 
of  a  man's  right  to  change  his  citizenship  by  "  naturalization  "  has  prevailed. 

2  England  offered  to  open  the  West  India  ports  to  American  trade,  but  only 
to  small  coasting  vessels,  and  upon  condition  that  America  promise  for  twelve 
years  not  to  export  to  any  part  of  the  world  molasses,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa,  or 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  363 

American  citizens  for  recent  seizures  of  ships  and  goods.1  The 
American  government  dropped  the  claim  for  compensation  for 
the  deported  Negroes,  and  promised  to  compensate  British 
creditors  who  had  been  unable  to  collect  pre-Bevolutionary 
debts. 

It  took  all  Washington's  influence  to  sectire  ratification  of  the  treaty 
in  the  Senate  ;  and  even  so,  after  bitter  debates,  there  was  not  a  vote  to 
spare.2  Among  the  people,  excitement  and  opposition  were  intense. 
Jay  was  burned  in  effigy.  Hamilton  was  stoned  from  a  public  platform 
where  he  advocated  ratification.  Washington  himself  was  heaped  with 
vituperation.  The  Virginia  legislature  voted  down  a  resolution  express- 
ing trust  in  her  greatest  son,  and  the  national  House  of  Representatives 
struck  out  the  customary  words  "undiminished  confidence'1'1  from  an 
address  to  him. 

Had  Jay  been  less  sympathetic  toward  England  or  better  acquainted 
with  American  conditions,  it  is  barely  possible  he  might  have  secured 
better  terms.  The  treaty  certainly  left  much  to  be  desired;  but  at  worst 
it  was  well  worth  while.  America  secured  undisputed  possession  of  her 
full  territory  and  satisfaction  for  commercial  injuries.3    If  we  gained 

cotton.  The  English  intention,  probably,  was  simply  to  maintain  her  naviga- 
tion system  with  regard  to  other  countries,  by  making  sure  that  American 
vessels,  admitted  to  the  Island  ports,  should  not  carry  the  products  of  those 
colonies  to  other  parts  of  the  world  as  well  as  to  the  United  States,  and  that 
such  products,  if  brought  first  to  the  United  States,  should  not  be  reexported. 
Jay,  too,  seems  to  have  been  ignorant  that  these  restrictions  would  hamper 
American  commerce.  The  twelfth  article  of  the  treaty,  containing  this  trade 
provision,  was  particularly  unpopular,  and  was  cut  out  by  the  Senate  before 
ratification. 

i  England  finally  paid  $6,000,000  to  American  claimants. 

2  To  carry  out  some  provisions  of  the  treaty  (payment  of  British  creditors) 
an  appropriation  was  necessary ;  and  this  had  to  be  made  by  the  House  of 
Representatives.  That  chamber  would  not  have  ratified  the  treaty,  if  left  to 
itself,  and  now  showed  disposition  to  defeat  it  indirectly.  By  a  close  vote, 
however,  the  position  was  maintained  that  treaty-making  belongs,  by  the 
Constitution,  to  the  President  and  Senate;  and  that  it  is  the  constitutional 
duty  of  the  House  to  make  the  necessary  appropriations.  This  precedent  has 
been  followed  on  later  occasions,  though  not  without  some  difference  of 
opinion. 

3  No  treaty  at  that  time  could  have  secured  from  England  the  abandon- 
ment of  impressment ;  but  that  practice  had  not  yet  reached  the  height  to 
which  it  came  later. 


364  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

little  else,  we  gained  what  we  needed  most  —  time.  To  our  new  and 
unprepared  nation,  war  at  that  moment  would  have  been  ruin.  The 
treaty  permitted,  for  seventeen  years,  an  honorable  escape.  Moreover, 
one  feature  of  the  treaty  was  a  distinct  step  onward  for  humanity, 
though  at  the  time  its  significance  was  little  appreciated.  The  Jay 
Treaty  deserves  to  be  held  in  honorable  memory,  because  it  provided  for 
the  first  instance  of  international  arbitration  in  modern  times  and  in  the  modern 
sense  (§  232). 

232.  Arbitration.  —  The  treaty  of  1783  had  named  the  St. 
Croix  River  as  the  boundary  of  Maine  from  the  sea  to  the 
highlands.  But  that  unexplored  region  contained  several 
rivers  bearing  that  name.  The  treaty -map,  with  its  red-ink 
drawings,  had  been  lost ;  and  several  thousand  square  miles  of 
territory  had  fallen  into  honest  dispute. 

The  treaty  of  1794  submitted  the  question  to  adjudication 
by  a  commission  (two  men  chosen  by  each  power,  they  to  have 
authority  to  choose  a  fifth)  ;  and  each  nation  pledged  itself  to 
abide  by  the  award.  The  commission  was  to  act  as  an  inter- 
national court,  with  somewhat  of  judicial  procedure.  It  was 
not  to  be  merely  a  meeting  of  diplomats,  to  make  a  bargain,  or 
to  seek  out  a  compromise.  It  was  to  examine  evidence  and 
hear  argument,  and  was  sworn  to  do  justice  according  to  the 
real  merits  of  the  case,  as  an  ordinary  court  decides  title  to 
property  between  private  claimants. 

This  rational  agreement  called  forth  violent  outcry.  In  Eng- 
land, the  ministry  were  assailed  for  "  basely  sacrificing  British 
honor  " ;  and,  on  this  side  the  water,  there  was  much  senseless 
clamor  about  "not  surrendering  American  soil  without  first 
fighting  to  the  last  drop  of  our  blood."  To  such  silly,  question- 
begging  pretense  of  patriotism,  Hamilton's  reply  was  un- 
answerable :  "  It  would  be  a  horrid  and  destructive  principle 
that  nations  could  not  terminate  a  dispute  about  a  parcel  of 
territory  by  peaceful  arbitration,  but  only  by  war." 

233-  Spanish  troubles  have  been  treated  in  earlier  chapters.  In  1795, 
after  vigorous  negotiation,  not  unaccompanied  with  virtual  threats  of 
war,  the  Pinckney  Treaty  secured  what  seemed  on  paper  a  fairly  satis- 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  365 


factory  adjustment.  Spain  (1)  recognized  the  thirty-first  parallel  as  the 
northern  boundary  of  Florida  (§  162,  note)  ;  (2)  bound  herself  to  restrain 
Indian  hostilities  ;  (3)  promised  the  "right  of  deposit"  at  New  Orleans 
(§  175)  ;  and  (4)  agreed  to  pay  for  previous  seizures,  after  arbitration  of 
claims  by  a  mixed  commission.1  In  practice,  it  is  true,  Spanish  officials 
in  America  continued  unwarranted  abuses. 

234.   New  Troubles  with  France:   "The  War  of  1798."  — If 

the  Jay  Treaty  saved  us  from  war  with  one  country,  it  well- 
nigh  plunged  us  into  war  with  another.  France  was  disap- 
pointed and  angered  ;  and  her  government,  in  a  violent  protest, 
charged  the  United  States  with  weakness  and  bad  faith. 
Washington  had  just  recalled  Monroe,  our  minister  to  France, 
because  of  dislike  for  his  pro-French  conduct;  and  France 
insultingly  refused  to  receive  Pinckney,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed to  the  place.  Soon  she  withdrew  her  minister  from 
America,  and,  to  the  full  extent  of  her  power,  began  aggressions 
upon  our  commerce. 

Meantime,  the  administration  of  Adams  had  opened,  —  to  be 
occupied  almost  wholly  by  these  troubles  and  by  the  disputes 
at  home  growing  out  of  them.  The  new  President  sent  Gerry, 
Pinckney,  and  John  Marshall  to  France  to  negotiate  a  settle- 
ment. The  French  administrators  first  ignored  these  gentle- 
men, and  then,  through  secret  agents,  tried  to  intimidate  them 
and  to  demand  tribute  in  money  for  their  own  private  pockets.2 

The  publication  of  this  infamous  matter  in  America,  and 
Pinckney 7s  famous  phrase,  "  Millions  for  defense,  but  not  a  cent 
for  tribute,"  silenced  the  friends  of  France  and  fanned  popular 
indignation  to  white  heat.  Even  the  Southern  States  elected 
Federalist  congressmen;  and,  in  1798,  the  Federalists  once 
more  gained  possession  for  a  moment  of  all  branches  of  the 


1  Commissions  had  been  provided  also  in  the  Jay  Treaty  to  adjudicate 
the  claims  of  English  citizens  for  old  debts,  and  of  American  citizens  for 
recent  losses.  Such  commissions,  to  decide  the  value  of  private  claims,  were 
a  notable  advance ;  but  they  should  not  be  confounded  with  a  commission  to 
decide  between  two  nations. 

2  Special  report :  The  X.  Y.  Z.  affair. 


366  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

government.  Meantime,  in  the  old  Congress,  enough  waverers 
were  swept  off  on  the  Federalist  tide  to  give  that  party  a  work- 
ing majority.  In  the  summer  of  1798,  preparations  for  war 
were  hastened.  The  army  was  reorganized,  with  Washington1 
as  commander  in  chief  and  Hamilton  as  his  second  in  com- 
mand; war  vessels  were  built.  War  was  not  formally  declared, 
it  did  exist  in  fact.  Scores  of  ships  were  commissioned  as 
privateers,  to  prey  upon  French  merchantmen  ;  and  the  frigate 
Constellation  fought  and  captured  the  French  Vengeance. 

At  this  moment,  in  a  roundabout  way  the  French  govern- 
ment intimated  that  it  would  be  glad  to  renew  negotiations. 
Adams  had  won  great  applause  by  his  declaration,  "  I  will  never 
send  another  minister  to  France  without  assurance  that  he  will 
be  received,  respected,  and  honored  as  becomes  the  represent- 
ative of  a  great,  free,  powerful,  and  independent  nation  n ;  but 
now  patriotically  he  threw  away  his  popularity  and  the  chance 
predominance  of  his  party,  in  order  to  save  his  country  from 
war.  Even  without  the  previous  knowledge  of  his  Cabinet, 
he  appointed  another  embassy  ; 2  and  the  treaty  of  1800  secured 
our  trade,  for  the  time,  from  further  French  aggression. 

VI.     DOMESTIC   TROUBLES,    1797-1800 

235.  War  Taxes :  "  Fries'  Rebellion."  — Preparation  for  war  necessi- 
tated more  revenue.  The  tariff  was  raised  ;  a  Stamp  Act  was  passed  ;  3 
and  a  "direct  tax"  of  $2, 000,000  was  apportioned  among  the  States. 
All  these  measures  caused  loud  outcry,  and  the  last  resulted  in  a  "re- 
bellion." 

The  direct  tax  was  collected  upon  slaves  and  real  estate.  Houses  were 
assessed  according  to  size  and  number  of  windows.     Officers  were  fre- 

1  Washington  had  become  so  warm  a  partisan  that  he  wished  to  exclude  all 
Republicans  from  the  army. 

2  Adams  showed  a  patriotic  courage  in  this  act,  which  is  perhaps  his  best 
claim  to  grateful  remembrance.  He  himself  proposed  for  his  epitaph,  "  Here 
lies  John  Adams,  who  took  upon  himself  the  responsibility  for  the  peace  with 
France,  in  1800." 

3  The  Stamp  Act  was  similar  to  the  British  Act  of  1765.  Read  Walker's 
Making  of  the  Nation,  144. 


ALIEN  AND   SEDITION  ACTS  367 

quently  insulted  or  resisted  in  their  attempts  to  measure  houses.1  In 
Pennsylvania  a  number  of  rioters  were  arrested.  They  were  promptly 
rescued  by  armed  men  led  by  a  certain  Fries.  President  Adams  thought 
it  necessary  to  call  out  an  army  to  repress  the  "  insurrection."  Fries  was 
condemned  to  be  hung  for  treason,  but  was  pardoned  by  the  President 
(cf .  §  220) ,  —  to  the  indignation  of  leading  Federalists,  who  clamored  for  an 
"  example."  2 

236.  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts,  —  Political  controversy  had 
grown  excessively  bitter.  Republican  editors  poured  forth 
upon  the  President  and  his  administration  abuse  which  in  our 
better-mannered  era  would  be  regarded  as  blackguardism. 
The  Federalists,  made  quite  mad  by  their  new  lease  of  power, 
retorted  with  language  equally  foul,  and  with  the  notorious 
"  alien  and  sedition  "  laws,  —  repressive,  tyrannical,  dangerous 
to  the  spirit  of  free  institutions. 

A  new  Naturalization  Act  raised  the  period  of  necessary 
residence  in  the  United  States  from  five  years  to  fourteen ; 
and  an  Alien  Law  authorized  the  President,  without  trial,3 
merely  at  his  pleasure,  to  order  out  of  the  country  "any  aliens 
he  shall  judge  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  United 
States,"  and,  if  they  remained,  to  imprison  them  "so  long  as, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  the  public  safety  may  require."  4 
The  Sedition  Law  provided  fine  and  imprisonment  for  "com- 
bining" to  oppose  measures  of  the  government,  and  for  "any 
false,  scandalous,  or  malicious  writing  against  the  government " 
or  against  its  high  officials,  i  with  intent  to  bring  them  into  disre- 
pute? 


1  A  favorite  device  was  to  pour  slops  on  their  heads  from  the  windows. 

2  Adams  himself  had  blamed  Washington  severely  for  pardoning  the  leaders 
of  the  Whisky  Rebellion.  On  the  question  of  whether  Fries'  conduct  really 
constituted  "  treason,"   cf.  Walker's  Making  of  the  Nation,  147. 

3  The  denial  of  jury  trial  was  defended  on  the  ground  that  the  Sixth  Amend- 
ment applied  only  to  "citizens." 

4  A  third  Alien  Act  (regarding  "  alien  enemies  ")  was  perfectly  proper  and 
is  still  in  force.  It  authorizes  the  President  to  expel  from  the  country  all 
citizens  of  a  nation  with  which  the  United  States  is  at  v;ar,  if  he  think  such 
action  needful. 


368  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

Of  course,  seditious  utterance  and  slander,  if  provable, 
were  already  punishable  in  State  courts,  under  the  Common 
Law.  But,  since  the  Zenger  trial  (§  119),  prosecutions  of  this 
sort  for  political  utterances  had  become  obsolete.  The  people, 
with  sound  instinct,  had  preferred  to  endure  some  bad  manners, 
rather  than  to  imperil  liberty.  This  reenactment  of  obsolete 
practice  by  a  national  law,  to  be  enforced  in  the  Government's 
own  courts,  was  a  sinister  indication  of  the  Federalist  disposition 
to  stifle  political  criticism.  In  spirit  at  least  it  was  in  conflict 
with  the  first  amendment. 

President  Adams  took  no  part  in  securing  this  legislation  ;  and  he  made 
no  use  of  the  Alien  Act.  But  Federalist  judges  manifested  a  stern 
animosity  in  securing  convictions  under  the  Sedition  Law.  Mathew  Lyon, 
a  Vermont  congressman,  charged  Adams  with  "unbounded  thirst  for 
ridiculous  pomp  and  for  foolish  adulation"  and  with  "selfish  avarice." 
For  these  words,  he  was  punished  by  imprisonment  for  four  months  and 
by  a  fine  of  $1000.  Nine  other  convictions  followed  in  the  few  months 
remaining  of  Federalist  rule  ;  and  a  few  like  cases  occurred  even  in 
Federalist  State  courts.1  One  grand  jury  indicted  a  man  for  circulating  a 
petition  for  repeal  of  a  law. 

237.  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions.  —  To  the  Republi- 
cans this  Federalist  legislation  appeared  to  be  a  conscious 
violation  of  the  "  bill  of  rights  "  in  the  Constitution,  and  they 
apprehended  further  attacks  upon  personal  liberty.2  Appeal 
to  the  violently  partisan  courts  offered  little  chance  of  redress ; 
and  they  turned  for  protection  to  the  State  governments  and 

1  Cf.  Professor  Frank  Maloy  Anderson's  articles  in  American  Historical 
Review,  October,  1899,  and  January,  1900.  Forty  years  later,  Congress  reim- 
bursed Lyon's  heirs  with  interest. 

2 Jefferson  wrote  to  George  Mason  (Works,  Washington  ed.,  IV,  257): 
"  I  consider  those  laws  only  an  experiment  on  the  American  mind  to  see  how 
far  it  will  bear  an  avowed  violation  of  the  Constitution.  If  this  goes  down, 
we  shall  see  attempted  another  act  of  Congress  declaring  that  the  President 
shall  continue  in  office  during  life,  reserving  to  another  occasion  the  transfer 
of  the  succession  to  his  heirs  and  the  establishment  of  the  Senate  for  life. 
That  these  things  are  in  contemplation,  I  have  no  doubt."  In  the  same 
passage,  Jefferson  suggests  that  "  Monk  "  [Hamilton]  "  may  be  playing  the 
game  for  the  restoration  of  his  most  gracious  majesty,  George  III." 


VIRGINIA  AND   KENTUCKY  RESOLUTIONS      369 

the  doctrine  of  State  sovereignty.  The  Federalists,  drunk 
with  power,  had  threatened  tyranny:  the  Republicans,  in 
frenzied  panic,  sought  refuge  in  a  doctrine  of  anarchy.  Multi- 
tudes of  popular  meetings  denounced  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
laws,  properly  enough ;  and  the  Republican  legislatures  of 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  passed  mischievous  resolutions  of 
protest,  asserting  the  principle  of  Nullification} 

[To  be  discussed  with  books  open  only.~\ 

The  Virginia  Resolutions  called  upon  the  other  States  to  join  in  de- 
claring the  Alien  and  Sedition  acts  unconstitutional  and  therefore  void. 
Just  how  the  laws  were  to  be  made  void  in  practice,  was  not  clear  ;  but 
the  resolutions  affirmed  "  That,  in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and 
dangerous  exercise  [by  the  Central  government]  of  .  .  .  powers  not 
granted  by  the  said  compact  [the  Constitution],  the  States  .  .  .  have 
the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose.'" 

The  first  Kentucky  Resolutions  affirmed  (1)  "that  whensoever  the 
General  Government  assumes  undelegated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthori- 
tative, void,  and  of  no  force";  (2)  "that  the  government  created  by 
this  compact  [the  Constitution]  was  not  made  the  exclusive  or  final  judge 
of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  itself,  since  that  would  have  made 
its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its  powers"; 
(3)  "that  to  this  compact  each  State  acceded  as  a  State,  and  is  an 
integral  party,  its  co-States  forming  .  .  .  the  other  party";  and  (4) 
"that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  parties  having  no  common 
judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infrac- 
tions as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress."  It  was  further  asserted 
"that  this  Commonwealth  is  determined,  as  it  doubts  not  its  co-States 
are,  tamely  to  submit  to  undelegated  .  .  .  powers  in  no  .  .  .  body  of 
men  on  earth  "  ;  but  the  only  action  suggested  is  that  the  other  States 
"unite  with  this  Commonwealth  in  requesting  the  repeal  [of  the  objec- 
tionable legislation]  at  the  next  session  of  Congress."  2 

In  debate,  however,  the  leading  advocate  of  the  Resolutions  added: 
"  If  upon  the  representations  of  the  States,  from  whom  they  derive  their 

1  Jefferson  wrote  the  first  draft  of  the  resolutions  for  Kentucky ;  Madison, 
for  Virginia,  in  somewhat  gentler  form.  Indeed,  the  first  set  of  Kentucky 
Resolutions,  in  1798,  did  not  contain  the  word  Nullification,  though  it  was 
used  in  debate,  but  it  appeared  explicitly  in  a  second  set,  in  1799. 

2  MacDonald's  Select  Documents  gives  these  Resolutions  and  also  the 
Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  (pp.  137  ff.). 


370  FEDERALIST  PERIOD 

powers,  they  [Congress]  should  nevertheless  attempt  to  enforce  [those 
laws],  I  hesitate  not  to  declare  it  as  my  opinion  that  it  is  then  the  right 
and  the  duty  of  the  several  States  to  nullify  those  acts,  and  to  protect  their 
citizens  from  their  operation.  But  I  hope  and  trust  such  an  event  will 
never  happen,  and  that  Congress  will  always  have  sufficient  virtue, 
wisdom,  and  prudence,  upon  the  representation  of  a  majority  of  the 
States,  to  expunge  all  obnoxious  laws."  > 

The  Resolutions  of  1799  were  more  strenuous  in  statement  of  principle, 
though  even  less  emphatic  as  to  proposed  action.  Irritated  by  the  un- 
favorable responses  from  other  States,  the  Kentucky  legislature  now 
used  the  word  nullification,  but  was  careful  not  to  advise  its  application. 
It  again  asserted  the  central  doctrine  of  its  former  resolutions  —  that  the 
government  is  not  judge  of  its  own  powers,  and  added  (1)  "that  the 
several  States  who  formed  [the  Constitution],  being  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent, have  the  unquestionable  right  to  judge";  and  (2)  "that  a 
Nullification  by  these  sovereignties  of  all  unauthorized  acts  done  under 
color  of  that  instrument  is  the  rightful  remedy."  But  all  this  is  a  prel- 
ude to  only  "  a  solemn  protest "  against  the  Alien  and  Sedition  acts. 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  war  frenzy  of  1798-1799  had  mo- 
mentarily put  the  Federalists  in  control  of  most  of  the  State 
legislatures,  or  at  least  of  the  lower  Houses.  This  accidental 
predominance  explains  why  the  Southern  States  in  general 
made  no  response  to  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  appeals,  while 
several  Northern  legislatures  condemned  those  Resolutions 
severely,  —  sometimes  expressing  approval  of  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  laws,  always  denying  the  right  of  a  State  govern- 
ment to  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  Congressional  acts. 
Several  replies  denied  the  Kentucky  doctrine  that  there  was 
"no  common  judge"  between  a  State  and  the  Union,  affirming 
that  the  Supreme  Court  filled  that  position. 

This,  of  course,  has  come  now  to  be  the  universal  belief. 


1  Apparently,  then,  these  resolutions  did  not  mean  nullification  by  one 
State,  unless  a  majority  of  States  favored  such  action.  If  this  champion  had 
made  the  proportion  three  fourths,  he  would  have  had  the  number  necessary 
to  override  a  law  by  constitutional  amendment.  The  matter  was  left  vague  ; 
and  "  nullification  "  in  these  resolutions  is  vastly  different  from  the  precise 
and  definite  claim  of  Calhoun  iu  1830  as  to  the  right  of  any  State  to  act  upon 
its  own  judgment  (§  300). 


VIRGINIA  AND   KENTUCKY  RESOLUTIONS      371 

In  that  day,  however,  the  other  doctrine  —  that  there  was  "  no 
common  judge"  —  was  not  surprising.  It  grew  naturally  out 
of  the  vagueness  or  timidity  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention 
in  this  matter.  The  Supreme  Court  itself,  we  must  remember, 
had  not  yet  used  the  power  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Acts  of  Congress.  It  had  not  even  claimed  that  right, 
and  was  not  to  do  so  for  some  years  more  (§  257) ;  and  the 
very  New  England  States  which  now  affirmed  this  mighty 
province  for  the  Supreme  Court  denied  it  explicitly  fifteen 
years  later,  adopting  in  express  terms  the  doctrine  of  these 
Kentucky  Resolutions  (§§  2G9,  270). 

It  is  well,  however,  for  the  student,  at  this  stage,  to  realize  that  nulli- 
fication, whether  of  Jefferson's  brand  in  1798,  or  New  England's  in  1814, 
or  Calhoun's  in  1830,  was  absurd  in  logic,  and  would  have  been  anarchic 
in  practice.  Any  group  of  citizens  or  of  States  which  feels  itself  suffi- 
ciently oppressed,  has  the  natural  right  to  rebel,  and  try  to  change  the 
government  by  revolution,  —  as  America  did  in  1776.  The  right  of  revolu- 
tion is  the  fundamental  guarantee  for  liberty  in  organized  society.  The 
question  regarding  it  is  never  one  of  abstract  right,  but  always  of  con- 
crete righteousness  under  given  conditions.  In  result,  too,  revolution 
means  either  the  confirmation  of  the  existing  government  or  the  substitu- 
tion of  another  government.  But  nullification  meant  a  constitutional 
right  to  reduce  the  government  to  a  shadow  while  claiming  its  protec- 
tion. 

VII.    EXPIRING  FEDERALISM 

238.  Causes  of  Federalist  Overthrow.  —  The  Federalist  leaders 
had  fallen  into  foolish  blunders  (like  the  house  tax)  because 
they  did  not  understand  popular  feeling;  and  they  had  at- 
tempted reactionary  and  despotic  measures  (like  the  Sedition 
Act)  because  they  did  not  believe  in  popular  government. 
They  were  out  of  touch  with  the  most  ivholeso?ne  tendency  of  the 
times.  The  brief  reactionary  movement  in  American  life  was 
dying,  and  the  people  had  resumed  their  march  toward  democracy. 
When  an  arrogant  French  Directory  threatened  the  Federalist 
administration,  patriotism  had  temporarily  rallied  the  nation 


372  THE   DOWNFALL  OF  FEDERALISM 

to  its  support;  but  with  the  passing  of  that  foreign  danger, 
passed  also  the  chance  of  further  Federalist  rule. 

"Before  it  died,  Federalism  had  degenerated  into  a  senile  Toryism, 
as  much  out  of  touch  with  the  age,  and  as  incapable  of  political  activity, 
as  Jacobitism  *  in  England."  —  Ford,  American  Politics,  119. 

"The  blunder  of  the  Federalists  [in  passing  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
Acts]  was  not  an  accidental  one  ...  It  was  thoroughly  characteristic. 
It  sprang  out  of  a  distrust  of  the  masses ;  a  belief  that  the  people  must 
always  be  repressed  or  led;  a  reliance  on  Powers,  Estates,  and  Vested 
Interests  within  the  Commonwealth ;  a  readiness  to  use  force  ;  —  all  of 
which  were  of  the  essence  of  the  aristocratic  politics  of  the  last  quarter 
of  the  eighteenth  century."  — Walker,  Making  of  the  Nation. 

239.   Disreputable   Trickery  in  the   Election   of  1800.  —  The 

Federalists  tried  to  bolster  their  cause  by  inducing  Wash- 
ington to  be  a  candidate  once  more,  in  1800;  but  his 
refusal  and  death  threw  them  back  upon  Adams,  whose  old 
Revolutionary  popularity  made  him  still  their  most  available 
man.  The  Republican  candidates  were  Jefferson  and  Burr 
(the  latter  a  sharp  New  York  politician).  Lacking  true 
majorities,  the  Federalists  strove  to  manufacture  false  ones. 
The  electoral  vote  finally  stood  only  73  to  65  against  them ; 
but,  if  the  twenty  or  so  votes  secured  by  disreputable  trickery, 
against  the  will  of  the  people,  had  been  restored  to  the  column 
where  they  belonged,  their  defeat  would  have  shown  over- 
whelmingly, and  the  vote  would  have  stood  about  100  to  40. 
Details  throw  light  upon  the  political  morality  of  the  times. 

a.  A  Massachusetts  law  provided  for  choosing  electors,  in  districts, 
by  popular  vote.  Early  Congressional  elections  showed  a  strong  drift 
towards  Republicanism,  and  it  was  certain  that  party  would  carry 
several,  at  least,  of  the  sixteen  electors.  The  old  legislature,  still 
Federalist  by  a  small  majority,  was  summoned,  in  special  sessioii,  and 
repealed  the  electoral  law,  choosing  Federalist  electors  itself.  New  Hamp- 
shire took  similar  action. 


1  A  term  applied  to  a  small  faction  of  reactionaries  in  England,  who,  even 
after  the  Revolution  of  1688,  still  clung  to  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Right,  and 
therefore  claimed  to  owe  allegiance  to  the  exiled  Jameses,  or  Jacobi. 


PARTISAN  EXPEDIENTS  373 

6.  In  Pennsylvania  the  new  House  of  Representatives  was  strongly 
Republican,  but  hold-over  members,  from  the  war-election,  kept  the 
Senate  Federalist.1  So  far,  that  State  had  always  chosen  its  electors  by 
popular  vote.  This  time  the  Senate  would  not  agree  to  the  necessary  law 
(since  that  method  would  give  most  of  the  districts  to  the  Republicans) . 
There  being  no  law  on  the  matter,  it  was  then  necessary  for  the  legis- 
lature itself  to  choose  electors.  All  elections  of  officers  by  that  body  had 
been  by  joint  ballot.  The  Senate  now  insisted  upon  a  concurrent  vote 
(cl  §  212),  and  finally  compromised  upon  a  scheme  which  allowed  it 
to  name  seven  of  the  fifteen  electors.'2 

c.  In  New  York  the  law  provided  that  electors  should  be  chosen  by 
the  legislature.  This  choice  would  belong  to  a  new  (Republican)  legis- 
lature just  elected.  Hamilton  wrote  to  Governor  Jay,  urging  him  to 
prevent  this  result  by  calling  a  special  session  of  the  expiring  Federalist 
legislature  (as  in  Massachusetts)  so  that  that  body  might  repeal  the 
law  and  turn  the  choice  of  electors  over  to  the  people,  in  districts,  —  in 
which  case  some  Federalists  might  have  been  chosen.  To  Jay's  honor, 
he  refused  to  accept  this  suggestion,  indorsing  the  paper  with  the  words, 
"  Proposing  a  measure  for  party  purposes  which  I  think  it  would  not 
become  me  to  adopt." 

d.  When  the  contest  was  over,  and  it  was  plain  that  the  people  had 
turned  the  Federalists  out  of  all  the  elective  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment, the  expiring  and  repudiated  Congress  and  President  used  the 
few  days  left  them  to  intrench  their  party  in  the  appointive  branch  of 
government,  —  the  judiciary, —  "  that  part  of  the  government  upon  which 
all  the  rest  hinges,"  and  indulged  in  a  desperate  attempt  to  rob  the 
majority  even  of  its  choice  for  the  executive.  These  attempts  call  for 
more  extended  treatment  (§§  239,  240). 

240.  The  Judiciary  Act  of  1801  was  merely  an  unscrupulous 
attempt    to   perpetuate   Federalist   rule.3     (1)  Provision   was 

1  In  a  new  constitution,  in  1790,  Pennsylvania  exchanged  its  one-House 
legislation  for  the  prevalent  two-chambered  system. 

2  This  shabby  trick  —  a  deliberate  violation  of  a  popular  mandate  —  was 
loudly  applauded  by  the  Federalists  as  lofty  patriotism.  Said  the  Phila- 
delphia United  States  Gazette  of  the  Federalist  Senators:  "  [They]  deserve 
the  praises  and  blessings  of  all  America.  They  have  checked  the  mad  enthu- 
siasm of  a  deluded  populace  (!)  .  .  .  They  have  saved  a  falling  world." 

8  The  Federalist  argument  for  the  bill  (when  the  question  of  repeal  came 
up  the  next  year)  rested  chiefly  upon  the  necessity  for  separate  circuit 
courts,  in  order  to  protect  the  Supreme  Court  Justices  from  riding  circuit. 
But  the  Supreme  Court,  in  plain  matter  of  fact,  had  never  been  overworked. 


374  THE   DOWNFALL  OF  FEDERALISM 

made  that  the  first  vacancy  in  the  Supreme  Court  should  not 
be  filled,  but  that  the  number  of  Justices  should  at  that  future 
time  be  reduced  by  one.  In  the  natural  order  of  things,  this 
would  prevent  Jefferson  from  making  any  appointments  to 
that  bench.  (2)  New  Circuit  Courts  were  created  (§  217),  and 
the  number  of  circuits  was  increased  to  jsix,  with  three  judges 
for  each  except  the  last.  This  made  places  for  sixteen  new 
judges,  to  be  immediately  appointed  by  Adams  in  the  remain- 
ing nineteen  days  of  his  administration.  (3)  The  number  of 
District  Courts  was  increased  from  thirteen  to  twenty-three, 
making  places  for  eight  more  such  appointments.  In  addition, 
of  course,  there  were  clerks  and  marshals  to  be  named  for  all 
these  new  courts. 

Adams  was  not  able  to  make  his  last  appointments  under  this  law  until 
late  on  the  last  evening  of  his  term  of  office  ;  and  the  judges  so  appointed 
have  gone  by  the  name  of  "the  Midnight  Judges"  in  our  later  history. 
One  of  the  worst  features  of  a  thoroughly  bad  business  was  that  these 
appointments  were  used  to  take  care  of  Federalist  politicians  now  thrown 
out  of  any  other  job.  The  Constitution  prevented  the  appointment  of 
members  of  the  expiring  Congress  to  any  of  the  new  judgeships  just 
created  by  them  (cf.  §  200)  ;  but  this  constitutional  provision  was 
evaded  with  as  little  compunction  as  went  to  thwarting  the  will  of  the 
people.  Former  District  judges  were  promoted  to  the  new  Circuit 
judgeships,  and  their  former  places  were  filled  by  "retired"  Federalist 
congressmen.1 

Apart  from  this  shallow  evasion  of  a  law  in  the  Constitution,  the 
appointments  set  a  vicious  example.  The  people  at  the  polls  had 
repudiated  certain  men  for  government  positions  ;  but  President  Adams, 
the  agent  of  the  people,  thought  it  proper  to  place  those  men  in  more 
important  government  positions  for  life,  where  the  people  could  not  touch 
them.    This  sad  abuse  of  the  Presidential  power  has  had  much  later 

It  had  then  only  ten  cases  before  it,  and,  in  the  preceding  ten  years  of  its  life, 
it  had  had  fewer  cases  than  are  customary  in  one  year  now.  The  weakness 
of  the  Federalist  argument  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  bill  was  repealed  and 
the  old  order  restored  and  maintained  seventy  years  longer. 

1  In  urging  repeal  in  1802,  John  Randolph,  Republican  leader  in  Congress, 
declared  that  the  Federalists  had  turned  the  Judiciary  into  "  a  hospital  for 
decayed  politicians." 


PARTISAN  EXPEDIENTS  375 

imitation.    Such  a  practice  is  repugnant  to  every  principle  of  representative 
government. 

241.  Attempt  on  the  Presidency.  —  One  other  incident  led 
almost  to  civil  war,  and  resulted  finally  in  the  twelfth  amend- 
ment. Jefferson  and  Burr  had  received  the  same  electoral  vote. 
Every  Eepublican  had  intended  Jefferson  for  President  and 
Burr  for  second  place,  but,  under  the  clumsy  provision  of  the 
Constitution  (cf.  §§  212,  227,  note)  the  election  between  these 
two  was  now  left  to  the  old  House  of  Representatives,  in  which 
the  Federalists  had  their  expiring  war  majority.1 

The  Federalists  planned  at  first  to  create  a  deadlock  and 
prevent  any  election  until  after  March  4,  when  they  might 
declare  government  at  a  standstill  and  elect  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  old  Senate  as  President  of  the  country.  Jeffer- 
son wrote  at  the  time  that  they  were  kept  from  this  attempt 
only  by  definite  threats  that  it  would  be  the  signal  for  the 
Middle  States  to  arm  and  call  a  convention  to  revise  the  Con- 
stitution. Then  they  fell  back  upon  a  trick,  more  in  agree- 
ment with  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  but  one  which  would 
equally  have  cheated  the  nation  of  its  will.  The  House  of 
Representatives  had  the  legal  right  to  choose  Burr  for  Presi- 
dent, instead  of  Jefferson  ;  and  seemed  bent  upon  this  course, 
until  Hamilton  rendered  his  last  great  service  to  his  country 
by  opposing  such  action.2 

Then,  after  a  delay  of  five  weeks,  and  thirty-six  ballotings, 
the  House  chose  Jefferson  President;  and  early  in  the  first 
session  of  the  next  Congress  the  twelfth  amendment  was 
proposed  and  ratified,  for  naming  separately  President  and 
Vice  President  on  the  electoral  ballots. 

1  The  new  House,  elected  some  months  before,  but  not  to  meet  for  nearly  a 
year  longer,  was  overwhelmingly  Republican ;  but,  by  our  clumsy  arrange- 
ment, once  more  a  repudiated  party  remained  in  control  at  a  critical  moment. 
Cf .  §  212.       , 

2  Hamilton  does  not  seem  to  have  felt  the  enormity  of  the  proposed  viola- 
tion of  the  nation's  will;  but  he  knew  Burr  to  be  a  reckless  political  ad- 
venturer, and  thought  his  election  more  dangerous  to  the  country  than  even 
the  dreaded  election  of  Jefferson. 


376  THE   DOWNFALL   OF  FEDERALISM 

242.  Excursus:  Difficulty  of  Amendment. — The  first  ten  amend- 
ments, we  have  seen,  came  in  one  body,  as  a  part  of  the  bargain  by  which 
ratification  of  the  Constitution  was  secured.  The  eleventh  and  twelfth 
came  in  response  to  passions  which  might  otherwise  have  led  easily  to 
civil  war.  The  next  three  amendments  —  in  one  group  —  were  to  result 
from  civil  war  (§§  382-385).  Between  these  and  the  twelfth,  more  than 
sixty  years  elapsed;  and  since  the  last  of  these  Civil  War  amendments, 
forty  years  more  have  passed  without  further  change  in  the  written  docu- 
ment of  the  Constitution  —  in  spite  of  many  long-continued  popular 
demands.  In  practice,  the  amending  clause  has  proven  seriously  defec- 
tive. A  Constitution  that  can  be  modified,  constitutionally,  only  through 
fear  of  war  or  as  the  result  of  war,  is  too  "  rigid."  1 

J.  W.  Burgess,  a  conservative  scholar,  believes  in  a  written  constitu- 
tion as  a  check  upon  hasty  action  by  a  majority  ;  but  he  says  —  with  dis- 
tinct reference  to  the  situation  in  the  United  States:  "When  in  a 
democratic  political  society,  the  well-matured,  long  and  deliberately 
formed  will  of  the  majority  can  be  successfully  thwarted,  in  the  amend- 
ment of  its  organic  law,  by  the  will  of  the  minority,  there  is  just  as  much 
danger  to  the  State  from  revolution  and  violence  as  there  is  from  the 
caprice  of  the  majority  where  the  sovereignty  of  the  bare  majority  is 
acknowledged." 

Professor  J.  Allen  Smith  (Spirit  of  American  Government,  46  ff.) 
counts  some  2200  proposed  amendments  since  1789,  including  direct  elec- 
tion of  President  and  of  the  Senate,  and  legislative  control  over  the 
judiciary.  He  estimates  that  ^  of  the  population  constitutes  a  majority 
in  the  twelve  smallest  States,  and  so  might  defeat  an  amendment  desired 
by  ff  after  it  had  passed  Congress. 

243.  Meaning  of  the  Federalist  Period.  —  Alexander  Hamilton 
is  the  hero  of  the  twelve-year  Federalist  period.  He  should 
be  judged  in  the  main  by  his  work  in  the  years  1789-1793. 
During  that  critical  era,  he  stood  forth  —  as  no  other  man  of 
the  day  could  have  done  —  as  statesman-general  in  the  conflict 
between  order  and  anarchy,  union  and  disunion.     His  construc- 


1  Review  §§  196,  216,  and  Article  V  of  the  Constitution.  Since  this  page 
was  put  in  type,  the  Sixteenth  Amendment  has  been  ratified  (February,  1913), 
making  a  Federal  income  tax  constitutional.  An  attempt  has  been  made  in 
Congress  to  submit  an  amendment  which  will  simplify  the  amending  process. 


WHAT   FEDERALISM   EFFECTED  377 

tive  work  and  his  genius  for  organization  were  then  as  indis- 
pensable to  his  country  as  Jefferson's  democratic  faith  and 
inspiration  were  to  be  later.  Except  for  Hamilton,  there  would 
hardly  have  been  a  Nation  for  Jefferson  to  Americanize.  We 
may  rejoice  that  Hamilton  did  not  have  his  whole  will,  even 
in  the  matter  of  centralization ;  but  we  must  recognize  that 
the  centralizing  forces  he  set  in  motion  made  the  Union  none 
too  strong  to  withstand  the  trials  of  the  years  that  followed. 

Those  centralizing  forces  may  be  summarized  concisely.  The  tremen- 
dous support  of  capital  had  been  secured  for  almost  any  claim  the  govern- 
ment might  make  to  doubtful  powers.  Congress  had  set  the  example 
of  exercising  doubtful  and  unenumerated  powers;  and  a  cover  had  been  de- 
vised for  such  practice  in  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers.  The  appellate 
jurisdiction  conferred  on  the  Supreme  Court  was  to  enable  it  to  defend 
and  extend  this  doctrine.  Congress  had  begun  to  add  new  States  with 
greater  dependence  of  feeling  upon  the  National  government.  And  the 
people  at  large  had  begun  to  feel  a  new  dignity  and  many  material  gains 
from  a  strong  Union. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Bassett's  Federalist  Period  ("American 
Nation1'  series)  is  a  satisfactory  treatment.  Francis  A.  Walker's  Making 
of  the  Nation  (73-167)  is  an  admirable  brief  account.  Biographies  of 
Washington,  Adams,  and  Hamilton  should  be  accessible.  Source  mate- 
rial can  be  found  in  many  collections,  —  notably,  MacDonald's  Select 
Documents  and  Hart's  Contemporaries  HI. 


A 


X 


A*' 


*?  PART  III 

DEMOOEAOY  AND  NATIONALITY 
1800-1876 

CHAPTER   X 

AMERICA    IN    1800 

(A  proper  introduction  to  this  chapter  is  a  rereading  of  §§111,  120-124, 
137,  and  185.) 

244.  Preliminary  Survey.  —  From  the  election  of  Jefferson 
to  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  American  history  is  marked  by 
six  great  lines  of  development :  our  territory  expanded  tre- 
mendously;  we  won.  our  intellectual  independence  from  Old 
World  standards;  democracy  spread  and  deepened  in  our  na- 
tional life ;  our  industrial  system  grew  vastly  more  complex  ; 
slavery  was  abolished;  and  the  spirit  of  Nationalism  tri- 
umphed at  last  over  all  fear  of  disunion.  These  tendencies 
were  intimately  interrelated ;  and  it  was  the  territorial  expan- 
sion ivhich  formed  the  chief  medium  through  which  ran  the  bonds 
between  the  others. 

The  nineteenth  century  has  for  one  of  its  chief  marks  for  all 
the  globe  the  expansion  of  civilization  into  waste  or  wild 
spaces.  England,  Russia,  and  the  United  States  were  the 
three  powers  most  interested  in  this  movement.  The  two 
others  added  more  territory  than  we ;  but  not  even  for  them 
was  this  growth  so  much  the  soul  of  things  as  for  us.  It  is 
the  key  to  our  other  growth. 

Territorial  growth  made  us  truly  American.  Our  tidewater 
communities  remained  colonial  in  sentiment  long  after  they 
became  independent  politically.     Only  when  our  people  had 

378 


PRELIMINARY  SURVEY 


379 


380  AMERICA  IN  1800 

climbed  the  mountain  crests  and  turned  their  faces  in  earnest 
to  the  great  West,  did  they  cease  to  look  to  the  Old  World 
for  standards  of  thought  and  culture  and  to  hang  timorously 
upon  Old  World  approval.  Our  war  for  intellectual  independ- 
ence was  waged  against  the  Appalachian  forests. 

It  made  us  democratic.  The  communities  politically  pro- 
gressive have  always  been  the  frontier  elements,  —  first  the 
western  sections  of  the  original  States,  and  then  successive 
layers  of  new  States. 

It  created  our  complex  industrialism,  with  division  of  indus- 
tries and  of  labor,  and  the  interdependence  of  sections ;  and  so 
it  helped  to  bring  about  the  inevitable  conflict  between  slave  and 
free  labor. 

It  lies  at  the  root  of  our  growth  in  nationality,  as  opposed  to 
the  jealous,  particularistic,  separatist  tendencies  in  the  original 
Thirteen  States.  It  was  expansion  into  the  Mississippi  valley, 
wrought  out  by  nature  for  the  home  of  one  mighty  industrial 
empire,  that  transformed  a  handful  of  jangling  communities, 
scattered  amid  the  forests  and  marshes  of  the  Atlantic  slope, 
into  a  continental  nation. 

In  all  this  change,  throughout  the  nineteenth  century,  the  ever  shifting 
frontier,  ivith  its  fluidity  of  life  and  its  progressive  temper,  was  "  the  line 
of  most  efective  Americanization.'''1 1  And  so  Americans  have  exulted, 
with  right,  in  mere  growth,  —  feeling  truly,  if  not  always  clearly,  that  it 
was  not  mere  growth.  Sometimes  this  exultation  has  clothed  itself  in 
cheap  spread-eagleism  or  insolent  jingoism,  offensive  to  the  polite  ears  of 
people  of  refinement,  whose  culture  has  not  been  robust  enough  to  dis- 
cern the  sound  instinct  beneath  the  crude  articulation.  A  good  deal  of 
fun  has  been  poked  at  bumptious  talk  of  "manifest  destiny," 2  and  many 

1  Eeview  §  185,  on  "  the  meaning  of  the  frontier." 

2  This  talk,  and  especially  the  Western  exuberance,  is  caricatured  in  a  story 
of  toasts  at  a  dinner  party  of  Americans  in  Paris  during  the  exultation  that 
followed  the  victory  of  the  North  in  the  Civil  War.  "  Here's  to  the  United 
States,"  said  the  first  speaker  (a  Bostonian),  "  bounded  on  the  north  by  British 
America,  on  the  south  by  Mexico,  on  the  east  by  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  on 
the  west  by  the  Pacific."  These  words  represented  vast  and  recent  achiev- 
ment,  and  still  more  recent  preservation.  "But,"  said  the  second  speaker, 
from  Chicago,  "  this  is  too  limited  a  view.    We  must  look  to  our  Manifest 


PHYSICAL  CONDITIONS  381 

well-meaning  critics  —  unable  to  read  the  great  American  poem  in  its 
prose  version — have  seen  in  this  buoyant  self-confidence  only  a  vulgar 
and  grotesque  boastfulness  of  material  bigness,  and  have  lamented  that 
the  national  ideals  were  so  sordid  and  mean. 

Sordid,  for  a  time,  American  ideals  did  become,  in  great  measure  ;  but 
not  until  the  later  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  — when  this  period  of 
expansion  was  over,  and  commercialism  had  replaced  romance  as  the 
dominant  note  in  our  life  (§407).  Throughout  the  period  now  under 
consideration,  the  plain  people  felt,  more  or  less  consciously,  the  inner 
truth  which  the  cultured  critic  missed.  For  the  creation  of  the  nation, 
and  for  its  proper  life,  the  conquest  of  our  proper  territory  was  first  need- 
ful ;  and  this  Titanic  conflict  with  a  continent  became  idealized  to  the 
heart  and  imagination  of  a  hardy  race.  This  was  the  hundred-year 
American  epic,  —  its  protagonist,  the  tall,  sinewy,  saturnine  frontiersman, 
with  his  long  rifle  and  well-poised  ax,  and  usually  with  his  Bible,  en- 
camped in  the  wilderness  to  win  a  home  for  his  children,  and  for  a  na- 
tion. 

"  O  strange  New  World  !     That  never  yit  wast  young. 
Whose  youth  from  thee  by  grippin'  need  was  wrung ; 
Brown  foundlin'  o'  the  woods,  whose  baby-bed 
Was  prowled  roun'  by  the  Injun's  cracklin'  tread, 
And  who  grewst  strong  thru  shifts,  and  wants,  and  pains, 
Nursed  by  stern  men  with  empires  in  their  brains, 
Who  saw  in  vision  their  young  Ishmael  strain 
In  each  hard  hand  a  vassal  Ocean's  mane  ! 
Thou  taught  by  freedom,  and  by  great  events, 
To  pitch  new  States  as  old- World  men  pitch  tents  !  "  1 

245.  Physical  Conditions.  —  Since  American  history  now  turns 
away  from  the  Atlantic  border,  it  is  needful  to  take  account 
more  fully  of  the  geography  of  the  continent  and  the  marvel- 


Destiny.  Here's  to  the  United  States,  bounded  on  the  North  by  the  North 
Pole,  on  the  south  by  the  South  Pole,  on  the  east  by  the  rising,  and  on  the 
west  by  the  setting,  sun."  Long  and  uproarious  applause  for  this  ambitious 
sentiment  only  stimulated  a  very  serious  gentleman  from  California,  who  next 
arose :  "  If  we  are  to  take  our  manifest  destiny  into  account,  why  restrain 
ourselves  within  such  narrow  limits?  I  give  you  the  United  States,  bounded 
on  the  North  by  the  Aurora  Borealis,  on  the  south  by  the  Precession  of  the 
Equinoxes,  on  the  east  by  Primeval  Chaos,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Day  of 
Judgment!" 

1  Lowell's  Big  low  Papers. 


382  AMERICA  IN   1800 

ous  physical  advantages  of  the  United  States.1  "For  communi- 
cation with  the  outside  world,  the  two  oceans  and  the  Gulf  give 
to  the  United  States  of  to-day  a  coast  line  of  18,000  miles,  —  a 
line  greater  in  proportion  to  area  than  even  the  coast  line  of 
Europe.  Rivers  and  the  American  shore  of  the  Great  Lakes 
add  19,000  miles  of  navigable  interior  waterways,  —  a  condi- 
tion absolutely  beyond  parallel  in  any  other  large  portion  of 
the  globe.  More  than  four  fifths  of  these  internal  water  roads, 
too,  are  grouped  in  the  vast  systems  of  the  Lakes  and  the 
Mississippi, — virtually  one  system,  —  opening  on  the  sea  on 
two  sides  and  draining  more  than  a  million  square  miles  of 
territory  (the  interior  third  of  the  United  States).  This  gives 
to  cities  a  thousand  miles  inland  the  advantages  of  seacoast 
ports,  and  binds  together,  for  instance,  Pittsburg  and  Bismarck, 
on  opposite  slopes  of  the  great  valley  a  thousand  miles  across. 

Above  the  limit  of  navigation,  these  streams,  and  others, 
furnish  an  unrivaled  water  power.  Many  years  ago,  Professor 
Shaler  estimated  that  the  energy  already  derived  from  the 
streams  of  this  country  exceeded  that  from  the  streams  of  all 
the  rest  of  the  world.  This  power  was  of  particular  impor- 
tance in  colonial  days.  Then,  for  a  hundred  years,  it  lost 
value,  relatively,  after  the  invention  of  steam  and  the  use  of 
coal ;  but  now,  with  new  devices  to  turn  it  into  electric  power, 
it  looms  again  a  chief  factor  in  future  wealth. 

The  Appalachian  system  contains  rich  deposits  of  coal  and 
iron  in  close  neighborhood  (an  indispensable  condition  for 
development  of  the  manufacturing  arts  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury); while  the  Great  Lakes  make  communication  easy  be- 
tween Appalachian  coal  and  Lake  Superior  iron.  Other 
mineral  deposits  needful  in  industy  exist  in  abundance, 
well  distributed  over  the  country,  —  copper,  lead,  zinc,  build- 
ing stone,  gold  and  silver,  salt,  phosphates,  clays,  cements, 
graphite,  grindstones,  and  a  small  amount  of  aluminum.  In 
1800,  great  forests  still  stretched  from  the  Atlantic  to  Illinois 

i  Review  §§  1-9. 


PHYSICAL  CONDITIONS 


383 


384 


AMERICA  IN  1800 


and  western  Kentucky,  and  the  vast  woods  of  the  Pacific  slope 
were  to  become  our  heritage  at  a  later  date.  The  fertile  soil 
and  abundant  rainfall  of  the  Mississippi  valley,  and  the  tem- 
perate climate  of  great  portions  of  it,  need  only  to  be  sug- 
gested to  be  appreciated.  It  seems  probable,  too,  that  New 
World  conditions  tend  to  build  the  European  immigrant  into  a 
stronger  and  larger  man  than  could  have  developed  in  his 
original  home. 

[  To  be  discussed  with  books  open.'} 

Quite  as  marked  are  certain  political  results  of  our  geog- 
raphy. The  map  of  Western  Europe  makes  clear  why  eight 
or  nine  distinct  governments  there  divide  an  area  smaller  than 
that  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  In  like  manner,  the  physical 
features  of  the  Atlantic  fringe  of  America  tended  to  particu- 
larism, as  we  have  seen,  in  industry  and  in  politics.*  But  the 
great  central  valley,  to  become  the  center  of  American  history 


100  West  from  Greenwich 


Sectional  Elevation  op  the  United  States  in  Latitude  40°  North. 
(After  Draper.    Elevations  magnified.) 

p-o,  sea  level ;  a,  Appalachian  crest ;  b,  Mississippi ;  c,  beginning  of  saline  plains ; 
d-e,  Great  Salt  Lake  region  ;  e-f,  great  elevated  basin  ;  /,  Coast  range  ;  o-c,  Atlantic  sec- 
tion ;  c-p,  Pacific  section. 

The  slope  bd  is  more  than  1000  miles  long,  up  to  the  mountain  passes,  which  are  about 
10,000  feet  above  the  sea  (with  peaks  rising  4000  or  4300  feet  higher).  The  true  rise,  there- 
fore, is  less  than  10  feet  to  a  mile. 


soon  after  1800,  tended  irresistibly  to  political  and  industrial 
unity.  Europe  is  "convex  toward  the  sky."  Not  merely  do 
mountains  and  seas  create  walls  and  moats  for  military  defense ; 
but,  even  more  important,  the  rivers  tend  toward  dispersion. 
America  is  "a  vast  concave."  Its  mountains  guard  the  fron- 
tiers only.     The  streams  of  the  interior  tend  to  concentration, 


WESTERN  MARCH  OF  POPULATION  385 

of  industry,  trade,  and  population,  and  therefore  to  political 
unity. 

Two  conditions  which  might  have  operated  unfavorably  upon  Ameri- 
can development  require  mention. 

(a)  The  diagram  opposite  shows  a  section  elevation  of  the  United 
States  along  the  fortieth  parallel.  The  meridian  100  west  from  Greenwich 
cuts  the  country  into  fairly  equal  but  very  different  halves.  The  eastern 
half  is  essentially  of  one  character,  and  was  easily  made  one  section  as  to 
communication  by  railroads  and  canals.  Neither  fact  holds  good  for 
the  western  half.  That  vast  region  contains,  in  succession  (to  quote  Dr. 
Draper),  "  an  arid,  sandy  district,  the  soil  saline  and  sterile  ;  an  enormous 
belt  of  elevated  land  without  an  equivalent  in  Europe,  the  eastern  side  a 
desert,  the  western  Asiatic  in  character ;  and^,  on  the  rapid  Pacific  incline, 
the  moist  genial  atmosphere  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain;  —  a  series  of 
zones  with  all  the  contrasts  of  nature.  .  .  .  The  imperial 'Republic  has  a 
Persia,  an  India,. -a  Palestine,  a  Tartary  of  its  own." 

These  diverse  zones  from  east  to  west  had  little  opportunity,  however, 
to  operate  in  hostility  to  political  union.  The  American  people  did  not 
come  under  their  influence  at  all  until  just  before  the  great  Civil  War. 
The  question  of  Union  or  Disunion  was  settled  for  generations  to  come 
by  men  reared  under  the  influence  of  the  uniform  eastern  half  of  the 
continent. 

(b)  The  lines  of  22  and  41  degrees  Fahrenheit,  for  January,  may  be 
taken  as  convenient  bounds  for  the  true  "temperate"  zone.  (Map, 
p.  2.)  By  those,  or  any  other  suitable  lines  of  "equal  temperature," 
the  climatic  temperate  zone  in  North  America  (in  the  interior  as  on  the 
coast)  is  far  narrower  than  in  Europe.  Its  width  in  Europe  is  one  of  the 
causes  for  that  continent's  becoming  the  earliest  home  of  true  civilization. 
Its  narrowness  in  America  is  in  itself  a  condition  unfavorable  to  progress  ; 
but  this  influence  was  minimized  by  the  late  date  of  settlement  and  the 
advanced  civilization  of  the  early  settlers  (§  1,  a). 

246.  The  population  in  1800  counted  five  million  (5,308,48s),1 
of  whom  a  fifth  were  slaves.  Two  thirds  of  the  Whites  were 
north,  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  Nine  tenths  of  the  whole 
population  dwelt  east  of  the  mountains,  and  two  thirds  within 
fifty  miles  of  tidewater.  The  land  was  untamed, — forests  hardly 
touched,  and  minerals  undisturbed.     Even  in  the  coast  district, 

1  The  British  Isles  in  1801  had  15,000,000  people.  The  first  American  census, 
ten  years  earlier,  showed  a  population  of  4,000,000.    Cf.  also  §§  111,  94. 


386 


AMERICA  IN   1800 


settlement  had  only  spotted  the  primeval  wilderness ;  and 
rough  fishing  hamlets  marked  havens  where  now  bristle  innu- 
merable masts  and  smokestacks. 

The  great  bulk  of  the  people  lived  in  little  agricultural  villages  or  in  the 
outlying  cabin  farms.  Less  than  one  twentieth  were  "urban."  By  the  first 
census  (1790),  only  six  towns  had  six  thousand  people.  Richmond,  the 
largest  city  of  the  most  populous  State,  had  less  than  four  thousand.    The 


Movement  of  Centers  of  Population  (a)  and  Manufactures  (+). 
(The  Census  Bureau  did  not  determine  the  center  of  manufactures  for  1910.) 

large  cities  were:  Philadelphia,  42,500;  New  York,  32,000;  Boston, 
18,000  ;  Charleston,  16,000 ;  Baltimore,  14,000  ;  and  Providence,  6000. 
By  1800  these  figures  had  risen  to  70,000,  60,000,  24,000,  20,000,  26,000, 
and  8000.  The  first  three  cities  had  begun  to  pave  their  streets  with 
cobblestones,  and  to  light  them  with  dimly  flaring  lamps,  and  they  brought 
in  wholesome  drinking  water  in  wooden  pipes  ;  but  police  systems  and 
lire  protection  hardly  existed,  and  the  complete  absence  of  sewers  resulted 
in  incessant  fevers  and  plagues.  In  1800  Washington  was  still  a  village 
of  contractors  and  workmen,  living  in  sheds  and  boarding  houses. 

The  western  march  of  our  population  had  begun.  In  1800 
the  "center  of  population"  was  eighteen  miles  west  of  Balti- 
more ;  but,  ten  years  before,  it  had  been  forty-one  miles  farther 
east.  The  half  million  people  west  of  the  mountains  dwelt 
still  in  four  or  five  isolated  groups,  all  included  in  a  broad,  ir- 
regular wedge  of  territory  with  its  apex  reaching  not  quite  to  the 
Mississippi  (map,  facing  p.  275).     The  greater  part  of  our  own 


ROADS  AND  TRAVEL  387 

half  of  the  great  valley  was  yet  unknown  even  to  the 
frontiersman,  and  two  thirds  our  total  area  was  classed  as 
"unsettled."  In  his  inaugural  of  1800,  Jefferson,  enthusiast 
that  he  was  regarding  his  country's  future,  asserted  that  we 
then  had  "  room  enough  for  our  descendants  to  the  hundredth 
and  even  the  thousandth  generation."  \ 

247.  Communication  remained  essentially  upon  the  pre- 
Revolutionary  footing.  The  States  had  little  more  social  or 
commercial  intercourse  with  one  another,  as  yet,  than  the 
colonies  had  enjoyed.  Postage  was  excessive.  The  lowest 
letter  rate  was  eight  cents  ;  and  from  New  York  to  Boston  it 
was  twenty  cents.  A  traveler  could*  go  by  clumsy  and 
cramped  stagecoach,  at  four  miles  an  hour,  from  Boston  to 
New  York  in  three  days,  and  on  to  Philadelphia  in  two  days 
more  —  longer  than  it  now  takes  to  go  from  Boston  to  San 
Francisco.  Such  travel,  too,  cost  from  three  to  four  times  as 
much  as  modern  travel  by  rail.  South  of  Philadelphia  (except 
on  the  one  route  to  Baltimore,  perhaps)  a  stage  was  exposed  to 
serious  delays,  and,  south  of  the  Potomac,  traveling  was  possible 
only  on  horseback  —  with  frequent  embarrassments  from 
absence  of  bridges  or  ferries.  A  few  turnpikes  had  recently 
been  built,  by  licensed  companies,  which  collected  exorbitant 
tolls  for  their  use  ;  and  a  good  wagon  road  had  been  constructed 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg.  Elsewhere,  in  a  wet  season, 
the  dirt  roads  were  soon  reduced  to  an  almost  impassable  con- 
dition. 

West  of  the  mountains,  even  such  roads  were  still  wanting, 
for  the  most  part,  though  the  "  Wilderness  Road  "  (§  170)  had 
been  widened  to  a  wagon  track.  A  few  canals  were  constructed 
between  1790  and  1800,  and  attention  was  turning  enthusias- 
tically to  the  possibilities  in  that  means  of  communication. 
But,  even  leaving  the  West  out  of  account,  freights  by  land  aver- 
aged, it  is  computed,  ten  cents  a  mile  per  ton 2  —  or  ten  times 


1  In  less  than  two  generations,  we  were  to  treble  that  territory. 

2  Read  McMaster,  III,  463,  465. 


388  AMERICA   IN   1800 

the  rates  our  railroads  impose  for  even  short  hauls.  To  move 
sugar  300  miles  by  wagon  cost  more  than  sugar  to-day  is  worth 
1000  miles  from  the  coast. 

248.  Occupations  remained  much  as  before  the  Revolution 
(§  124),  but  manufactures  were  making  somewhat  more  head- 
way, and  the  European  wars  favored  our  carrying  trade.  The 
year  after  the  close  of  the  Revolution  had  seen  the  first 
American  voyage  to  China,  and  American  shipmasters  seized 
promptly  and  zealously  upon  the  attractive  profits  of  Oriental 
trade.  John  Jacob  Astor  set  an  example  for  the  fur  trade's 
following  the  furs  into  the  far  Northwest.  A  few  iron  mills 
had  begun  operations ;  and,  between  1790  and  1812,  machinery 
for  weaving  and  spinning  cotton  was  introduced  from  recently 
invented  English  models. 

In  England,  Hargreaves  invented  the  spinning  jenny  in  1767 ;  Arkwright, 
the  drawing  frame  two  years  later ;  Crompton,  the  mule  spinner  in 
1784 ;  Cartwright,  the  power  loom  in  1785.  By  1800,  these  inven- 
tions had  changed  the  system  of  cotton  manufacture  in  England  from 
the  "domestic"  to  the  "factory"  system,  and  had  greatly  increased  its 
amount. 

Under  the  old  " domestic"  system,  women  had  spun  the  cotton  or  flax 
thread  and  woolen  yarn  on  the  old-fashioned  spinning  wheels  in  their 
homes  ;  and  single  individuals,  in  like  fashion,  in  their  own  homes,  had 
woven  the  thread  into  cotton  cloth  on  hand  looms.  If  the  work  was 
carried  on  in  a  shop,  the  master  worked  alongside  a  half-dozen  or  a  dozen 
employees,  each  of  whom  expected  in  time  to  become  a  "master." 
But  this  new  machinery  made  it  cheaper  to  bring  all  the  processes  of 
manufacture  into  one  factory,  with  many  workers  under  skilled  direc- 
tion,with  fixed  hours  of  labor.  These  operatives  could  never  hope  to  own 
mills  themselves.  Thus  began  a  distinct  labor  class  over  against  the  new 
capitalistic  class  of  factory  owners.  At  the  same  time  the  change  cut 
the  cost  of  cheap  cotton  cloth  to  a  fraction  of  the  old  cost.  It  led  also  to 
the  massing  of  population  in  cities.1 

In  America,  however,  this  "  Industrial  Bevolution  "  made  slight  head- 
way until  the  War  of  1812  cut  us  off  from  England  (§§266ff.);  and, 
even  to  1830,  the  "domestic"  system  predominated. 

1  Cf.  Modern  History,  §  526,  b. 


SOCIAL  CONDITIONS  389 

The  new  possibilities  in  cotton  manufacture  called  for  more 
cotton.  Until  1800,  England  had  secured  most  that  her  fac- 
tories used  from  India  and  Egypt.  The  southern  colonies  in 
America,  even  while  colonies,  and  with  their  slave  labor,  had 
found  the  production  of  cotton  discouragingly  expensive,  be- 
cause of  the  vast  difficulty  in  "  cleaning  "  it,  or  separating  the 
fiber  from  the  seed.  But  in  1793  Eli  Whitney,  a  Connecticut 
schoolmaster  in  Georgia,  devised  a  piece  of  machinery  efficient 
for  this  work  and  at  the  same  time  simple  enough  to  be  run  by 
a  slave.  The  cotton  gin  soon  made  labor  employed  in  cleaning 
cotton  three  hundred  times  as  effective  as  by  the  old  hand 
method.  The  cultivation  of  cotton  now  advanced  by  leaps, 
until  there  was  no  exaggeration  in  the  boast,  "Cotton  is  King.'* 
In  1794  Jay's  treaty  had  proposed  that  America  should  promise 
not  to  export  that  commodity.  Indeed,  in  1791  we  exported 
only  200,000  pounds ;  but  in  1800  the  amount  was  20,000,000 
pounds,  and  this  was  doubled  the  third  year  after. 

249.  Wages ;  Frugality.  —  In  the  cities  a  small  class  of  mer- 
chants imitated  in  a  quiet  way  the  luxury  of  the  corresponding 
class  in  England,  —  with  spacious  homes,  silver-laden  tables, 
and,  on  occasion,  crimson-velvet  attire.  The  great  planters  of 
the  South,  too,  lived  in  open-handed  wastefulness,  but  with  little 
real  comfort.  Otherwise,  American  society  was  simple  and 
frugal,  —  with  a  standard  of  living  far  below  that  of  to-day. 
Necessities  of  life  cost  more  (so  far  as  they  were  not  produced 
in  the  home),  and  wages  were  lower.  Hodcarrier  and  skilled 
mason  received  about  half  the  wage  (in  purchasing  value)  paid 
for  corresponding  labor  to-day  (and  for  a  labor  day  lasting  from 
sunrise  to  sunset),1  and  the  income  of  the  professional  classes 
was  insignificant  by  later  standards. 


1  And  these  wages  were  fifty  per  cent  better  than  before  the  Revolution, — 
so  that  John  Jay,  in  1800,  complains  bitterly  about  the  exorbitant  wages 
demanded  by  artisans,  much  as  John  Winthrop  did  in  1632.  For  an  example,  — 
the  unskilled  laborers  who  toiled  on  the  public  buildings  and  streets  of  Wash- 
ington from  1793  to  1800  received  seventy  dollars  a  year  "  and  found  "  (which 
did  not  include  clothing) . 


390  AMERICA  IN   1800 

Says  Henry  Adams:  "Many  a  country  clergyman,  eminent  for  piety 
and  even  for  hospitality,  brought  up  a  family  and  laid  aside  some  savings 
on  a  salary  of  five  hundred  dollars  a  year.  President  Dwight  [of  Yale] 
.  .  .  eulogizing  the  life  of  Abijah  Weld,  pastor  of  Attleborough,  declared 
that  on  a  salary  of  $250  Mr.  Weld  brought  up  eleven  children,  besides 
keeping  a  hospitable  house  and  maintaining  charity  to  the  poor." 1 

The  homes  of  such  professional  men  would  now  be  considered  plain  in 
the  extreme,  lacking  all  luxuries  and  many  things  regarded  as  essentials 
to-day  in  the  homes  of  mechanics.  The  farmers  and  mechanics  of  that 
time  found  clean  sand  a  substitute  for  carpets,  and  pewter  or  wooden 
dishes  sufficient  for  tableware.  There  was  no  linen  on  the  table  ;  nor 
prints  on  the  walls ;  nor  many  books,  nor  any  periodicals,  in  the  house 
(unless  perhaps  a  small  weekly  paper).  Except  for  hats  and  shoes  (which 
were  made,  as  well  as  sold,  at  the  village  shop),  all  the'  clothing  of  the 
family  was  home-made,  and  from  homespun  cloth  and  yarn.2  The  three 
meals  of  the  day  were  formed  from  varying  combinations  of  salt  pork,  salt 
fish,  potatoes  and  turnips,  rye  bread,  and  dried  apples,  with  fresh  meat 
for  the  town  mechanic  perhaps  once  a  week.  Among  vegetables  not  yet 
known  were  cauliflower,  sweet  corn,  lettuce,  cantaloupes,  rhubarb,  and 
tomatoes  ;  while  tropical  fruits,  like  oranges  and  bananas,  were  the  rare 
luxuries  of  the  rich.     Even  the  rich  could  not  have  ice  in  summer. 

In  all  externals,  life  in  1800  in  America  was  more  like  European  life 
of  a  thousand  years  earlier  than  like  our  life  of  a  hundred  years  later. 
To  quote  Henry  Adams  again :  "  The  Saxon  farmer  of  the  eighth  century 
enjoyed  most  of  the  comforts  known  to  the  Saxon  farmer  of  the  eight- 
eenth. .  .  .  Even  in  New  England,  the  ordinary  farmhouse  was  hardly  so 
well  built,  or  so  spacious,  or  so  warm,  as  that  of  a  well-to-do  contem- 
porary of  Charlemagne."  Agricultural  tools  and  methods  had  improved 
little  in  four  thousand  years.  The  American  farmer  of  1800  plowed  with 
the  clumsy  wooden,  home-made  bull  plow,  sowed  his  grain  broadcast  (by 

1  History  of  United  States,  I,  21.  Cf.  bibliography  at  close  of  chapter. 
Such  pastors  tilled  small  farms  or  gardens  with  their  own  hands,  to  eke  out 
their  salaries. 

2  Hence,  as  Dr.  Adams  reminds  us,  came  the  awkward  shapes  of  coat,  hat, 
and  trousers  soon  to  disappear,  but  first  to  become  fixed  in  Yankee  caricature. 
In  contrasting  expenditure  for  clothing  then  and  now,  Professor  MacMaster 
asserts :  "  Many  a  well-to-do  father  of  a  family  of  to-day  .  .  .  expends  each 
year  on  coats  and  frocks  and  finery  a  sum  sufficient  a  hundred  years  ago  to 
have  defrayed  the  public  expenses  of  a  flourishing  village, — schoolmaster, 
constable,  and  highways  included." 


SOCIAL  CONDITIONS  391 

hand),  cut  it  with  the  sickle  of  Tubal  Cain,  and  threshed  it  out  on  the 
barn  floor  with  the  flail  of  prehistoric  times, —  if  he  did  not  tread  it  out  with 
his  horses.  Stock  was  poor  and  poorly  cared  for.  Drainage  and  rotation 
of  crops  were  unknown.  The  first  threshing  machine  was  invented  in 
1785,  but  was  not  yet  in  use,  while  the  iron-wheeled  plow,  the  drill,  the 
reaper  and  binder,  the  hayrake,  with  the  mulitude  of  later  devices  which 
were  to  revolutionize  agriculture,  were  still  in  the  future.    Still  the  era  of 

rapid  change  was  just  at  hand£ 
**\ 
250.    Moral  and  Intellectual  Conditions.  —  Political  standards 
were  low.     Says  Professor  MacMaster  (With  the  Fathers,  71)  :  — 

"A  very  little  study  of  long-forgotten  politics  will  suffice  to  show  that 
in  filibustering  and  gerrymandering  (§  327),  in  stealing  governorships 
and  legislatures,  in  using  force  at  the  polls,  in  'colonizing,'2  and  dis- 
tributing patronage  to  whom  patronage  is  due  —  in  all  the  frauds  and 
tricks  that  go  to  make  up  the  worst  form  of  '  practical  politics '  —  the  men 
who  founded  our  State  and  National  governments  were  always  our  equals 
and  often  our  masters."  3 

Officials,  so  elected,  were  not  scrupulous  as  to  their  official 
conduct.  To  be  sure  there  was  less  bribery  than  in  more  recent 
times.  The  great  corporations  —  railways,  municipal  lighting 
companies,  etc.  —  which,  in  their  contest  for  special  privileges, 
were  to  become  the  chief  source  of  corrupting  later  legislatures 
and  city  councils,  had  not  yet  appeared.  Public  servants  had 
infinitely  less  temptation  to  betray  their  trust  for  private  gain 
than  now;  but  public  opinion  as  to  the  crime  was  far  less 
sensitive  than  to-day. 

1  In  1800  the  only  agricultural  machines  drawn  by  horses  were  the  wooden 
harrow  and  the  clumsy  plow.  The  first  improvements  in  this  last  implement 
date  from  experiments  by  Thomas  Jefferson  upon  the  wooden  moldboard. 
Of  hand  tools  there  were  only  the  spade,  fork,  sickle,  scythe,  hoe,  rake,  flail, 
and  ax.  All  of  them,  except  the  ax,  were  still  heavy  and  awkward,  calling 
lor  great  strength,  and  exhausting,  even  to  such  strength.  When  the  cast-iron 
plow  first  appeared,  about  1800,  farmers  declared  it  "  poisoned  the  soil."  By 
1825,  however,  its  adoption  had  made  a  new  era.  The  cradle  scythe  for 
cutting  grain  was  patented  in  1803. 

2  Bringing  in  voters  from  outside  to  carry  a  doubtful  district. 

3  Many  illustrations  of  this  unhappy  truth  have  been  given  in  preceding 
pages.     On  violence  at  elections,  see  McMaster's  History,  II,  14,  15. 


392  AMERICA  IN   1800 

For  private  life,  drunkenness  was  the  American  vice  —  with 
victims  in  all  classes  and  in  almost  every  family.  The  diet 
(§  249)  created  a  universal  craving  for  strong  drink.  Foreigners 
complained,  too,  of  a  lack  of  cleanliness,  and  were  shocked  at  the 
prevalence  of  brutal  fights  at  fairs  and  other  public  gatherings, 
with  biting  off  of  ears  and  gouging  out  of  eyes  as  common- 
place accompaniments.  Likewise,  they  found  American  society 
coarse  and  immodest  in  conversation  (like  English  society  two 
generations  earlier),  but  not  immoral  in  conduct.  As  every- 
where else  in  the  world,  barbarous  legal  punishments  and 
loathsome  jail  life  still  nourished.  The  insane  were  caged, 
like  wild  beasts,  in  dungeons  underneath  the  ordinary  prisons ; 
and  debt  brought  more  men  to  prison  than  any  crime.  There 
had  begun,  however,  some  protest  from  a  growing  spirit  of 
greater  gentleness  and  humanity,  soon  to  sweep  away  the 
worst  of  these  abominations. 

America  was  justly  famous  for  its  political  writings  in  con- 
nection with  the  Revolution  and  the  Constitution.  Otherwise, 
after  the  death  of  Franklin,  it  had  had  no  man  of  letters  and 
little  desire  for  literature.  Painting  reached  a  high  point  with 
Copley,  Stuart,  and  Benjamin  West ;  but  these  American  artists 
could  not  earn  a  mechanic's  living  at  home,  and  were  forced  to 
seek  appreciation  and  patronage  in  England.  New  England 
had  developed  her  remarkable  system  of  private  endowed  acad- 
emies, for  a  few  bright  and  energetic  boys,  as  fitting  schools  for 
college ;  but  the  Boston  Latin  School  was  almost  the  only  sur- 
vivor of  the  Puritan  attempt  at  public  "  grammar  schools  " 
(high  schools).  A  few  more  colleges  had  been  organized 
toward  180.0 ;  but  college  life  was  barren,  and  attendance  was 
meager.  Harvard  had  a  faculty  of  a  president,  three  pro- 
fessors, and  four  tutors.  The  elementary  schools,  even  in  New 
England,  had  decayed  into  a  two-months'  badly  taught  term  in 
winter,  for  boys,  and  a  like  term,  worse- taught,  in  summer,  for 
girls.  Distinct  instruction  in  law  and  medicine  was  beginning 
in  two  or  three  of  the  larger  colleges  or  universities ;  but,  for 
many  years  to  come,  most  young  men  who  entered  these  pro- 


(■ 


■ 


<s 


States 
Territories 

1791  Vermont   admitted  as  a  Free  State 

1792  Kentucky  admitted  as  a  Slave  State 
1790  Tennessee   admitted  «s  a  Slate  State 


St.  Augustine  1799  Indiana  Territory  organized 


THE   LAND  OF  PROMISE  393 

fessions  did  so  through  an  apprenticeship  in  the  office  of  an 
older  practitioner.     Most  colleges  offered  training  in  theology. 

Noah  Webster,  in  defending  his  countrymen  against  foreign  criticism, 
was  compelled  to  admit:  "Our  learning  is  superficial  to  a  shameful  de- 
gree. .  .  .  Our  colleges  are  disgracefully  destitute  of  books  and  philo- 
sophical apparatus  .  .  .  and  I  am  ashamed  to  own  that  scarcely  a  branch 
of  science  can  be  fully  investigated  in  America  for  want  of  books.  .  .  . 
As  to  libraries,  we  have  no  such  things.  .  .  .  Great  numbers  of  the  most 
valuable  authors  have  not  found  their  way  across  the  Atlantic." 

251.  Three  hopeful  conditions  in  American  life  in  1800,  not 
yet  touched  upon,  explain  in  large  measure  the  wonderful 
progress  of  our  people  in  the  century  that  followed.  These 
were  the  abundance  of  free  land,  close  at  hand;  the  unprece- 
dented intellectual  activity  among  the  agricultural  classes;  and 
the  peculiar  American  talent  for  mechanical  invention. 

a.  Free  land,  to  be  had  for  the  taking,  had  been  from  the 
beginning  the.  basis  of  American  democracy.  It  saved  colonial 
America  from  industrial  serfdom,  and  insured  a  moderate  de- 
gree at  least jifl  economic  and  social  democracy,  and  therefore 
of  political  democracy  v  Free  land  protected  the  artisan  against 
limitation  of  wages,  by  law,  at  the  hands  of  aristocratic  classes. 
Early  American  communities  tried  such  limitations ;  but  the 
artisan  did  not  have  to  submit.  He  could  lay  aside  his  trade 
and  take  up  a  farm.  Free  land  for  some  meant  better  wages 
and  economic  freedom  for  all  the  working  classes.1 

For  the  farming  class  itself,  too,  free  land  meant  that  only 
the  best  soils  had  to  be  used,  and  that,  even  on  them,  there 
was  no  such  demand  for  costly  fertilizing  as  in  the  Old  World. 
Agriculture,  the  main  American  industry,  was  amazingly  pro- 
ductive, even  with  the  primitive  methods  of  that  day. 

b.  The  second  consideration  was  even  more  important.  In 
every  Old- World  land,  the  men  who  tilled  the  soil  formed  a 
peasantry,  —  slow,  stolid,  unenterprising,  wholly  distinct  from 

-1  True,  wages  and  the  standard  of  living  were  still  low,  by  our  measure; 
but  this  was  because  no  great  amount  of  wealth  had  been  accumulated.  Such 
wealth  and  comfort  as  existed  was  distributed  less  unequally  than  now. 


394  AMERICA  IN   1800 

the  rest  of  society.  Here,  in  1800,  the  men  who  tilled  the  soil 
—  to  quote  Francis  A.  Walker's  passage :  — 

"  were  the  same  kind  of  men  precisely  as  those  who  filled  the  profes- 
sions or  were  engaged  in  commercial  or  mechanical  pursuits.  Of  two 
sons  of  the  same  mother,  one  [the  weakling  of  the  family  perhaps,  because 
thought  unfit  for  a  farmer]  became  a  lawyer,  perhaps  a  judge,  or  went 
down  to  the  city  and  became  a  merchant,  or  gave  himself  to  political 
affairs  and  became  a  governor  or  a  member  of  Congress.  The  other 
stayed  upon  the  ancestral  homestead,  or  made  a  new  one  for  himself  and 
his  children  out  of  the  public  domain,  remaining  all  his  life  a  plain  hard- 
working farmer  [the'children  of  the  two  families  mingling  without  suspi- 
cion of  social  or  intellectual  distinction]  .  .  .  There  was  then  no  other 
country  in  the  world,  .  .  .  where  equal  mental  activity  and  alertness 
[were']  applied  to  the  soil  as  to  trade  and  industry.'''1 

c.  Of  mechanical  insight  and  invention,  to  quote  General  Walker  again, 
11  it  is  difficult  to  write  without  producing  the  impression  of  exaggeration. 
There  is  only  one  nation  in  the  world  to  the  mass  of  whose  population 
this  form  of  genius  can  be  attributed.  That  nation  is  our  own.  In  other 
countries  it  is  only  picked  men,  a  select  few,  who  possess  mechanical  in- 
sight and  aptitude,  —  the  power  of  instantaneously,  because  instinctively, 
seizing  upon  mechanical  relations,  together  with  a  high  degree  of  native 
efficiency  in  the  use  of  tools.  With  us  the  rule  is  the  other  way.  There 
are  few  Americans  of  American  stock,  at  least  throughout  the  Northern 
States,  who  have  not  mechanical  insight  and  aptitude  in  a  measure  which 
elsewhere  would  make  them  marked  men.  '  Invention  is  a  normal  func- 
tion of  the  American  brain.  The  American  invents  as  the  Greek  chiseled, 
as  the  Venetian  painted,  as  the  modern  Italian  sings.'  " 

The  explanation  of  this  remarkable  American  power,  General  Walker 
finds  (1)  in  the  fact  that  the  early  settlers  were  in  the  main  a  picked  popu- 
lation from  the  inventive  English  race,1  and  (2)  that  upon  such  a  society 
were  laid  the  severe  requirements  of  existence  under  a  rigorous  climate, 
with  a  quenchless  desire  to  gratify,  in  the  wilderness,  the  tastes  and  ambi- 
tions of  a  civilized  society.  "To  make  shifts,  to  shorten  labor,  to  save 
time,  to  search  out  substitutes  for  what  was  unattainable  or  costly,  to  cut 
corners  and  break  through  barriers,  to  force  one  tool  to  serve  the  uses  of 
two  or  three,  to  compel  inappropriate  material  to  answer  urgent  needs 
[not  to  make  a  thing  perfect,  but  to  make  it  "do  "],  — this  was  the  con- 


1 "  More  truly  selected,  in  the  respects  of  mental  vigor,  intellectual  inquisi- 
tiveness,  enterprise,  and  self-reliance,  than  any  other  considerable  population 
which  history  knows." 


THE  LAND  OF  PROMISE  395 

staht  occupation  of  our  ancestors.  Life  was  no  routine,  work  was  no 
routine,  as  it  is  to  the  peasantry  of  every  country  in  Europe,  and  is  fast 
coming  to  be  among  us.  Everywhere,  and  at  all  times,  it  was  possible,  by 
thought  and  care  and  pains,  to  save  something  from  labor,  to  add  some- 
thing to  comfort  and  social  decency.  Originality  of  conception,  boldness 
in  framing  expedients,  and  fertility  of  resource  grew  by  constant  exercise 
.  .  .  until  invention  came  to  be  'a  normal  function  of  the  American  ' 
brain.'  " 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Henry  Adams'  History  of  the  United  States 
during  the  First  Administration  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  I,  1-74.  The  next 
hundred  pages  of  the  same  is  advisable  also.  This  is  the  best  reference 
on  American  conditions  in  1800.  MacMaster's  History  of  the  People  of 
the  United  States  has  much  admirable  material,  but  too  scattered  and 
discursive  for  students'  use.  On  geographical  conditions,  valuable  read- 
ings may  be  found  in  Farrand's  Basis  of  American  History,  chs.  1-4  ; 
Shaler's  The  United  States,  I,  chs.  1-3  and  7-9  ;  and  Shaler's  chapters  in 
Winsor's  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  IV ;  Gannett's 
Building  of  a  Nation.  Francis  A.  Walker's  •Making  of  a  Nation  (66- 
72)  treats  the  matter  of  §  251  more  satisfactorily  than  any  other  pub- 
lication ;  every  student  should  read  the  seven  pages  in  full. 

-T 


CHAPTER   XI 

JEFFERSONIAN    REPUBLICANISM 

I.     THE    "REVOLUTION   OF   1800" 

"  As  real  a  revolution  in  the  principles  of  our  government,  as  that  of 
1776  was  in  its  form." — Jefferson,  Works  (Washington  ed.),  VIII, 
133. 

252.  Jefferson.  —  From  1801  to  1809  American  history  is 
sometimes  called  "the  biography  of  Thomas  Jefferson."  The 
nation  believed  in  hfm;  Congress  swayed  to  his  wish;  his 
great  Secretaries  (Madison  for  State  affairs,  and  Gallatin 1  for 
the  Treasury)  admired  and  followed  him.  Indeed,  in  great 
measure,  to  1825  (except  for  the  distressing  three  years  of 
war),  his  counsel  continued  to  direct  his  successors. 

In  person,  Jefferson  was  tall  (six  feet,  two  and  a  half  inches),  of  vigor- 
ous, but  loose-jointed  frame,  with  sandy  hair,  and  irregular,  freckled, 
sunny  face.  He  was  an  athletic  and  reckless  horseman,  an  enthusiastic 
farmer,  the  friend  of  science  and  philosophy,  and  the  valued  correspond- 
ent of  the  most  famous  savants  of  Europe.  It  is  easy  to  see  him,  by  the 
accounts  of  contemporaries,  sitting  on  one  hip  with  neglected  dress  and 
slippers  down-at-the-heel,  chatting  with  rambling  charm  ;  or,  with  me- 
thodical industry,  recording  minutest  weather  details,  drawing  up  neat 
tables  to  show,  through  a  period  of  several  years,  the  dates  for  the  appear- 
ance of  thirty-seven  vegetables  in  the  Washington  markets,  reporting 
judicial  decisions,2  devising  rules  for  parliamentary  procedure,3  directing, 


1  Gallatin  was  a  Swiss  emigrant,  and,  for  some  years  past,  a  leader  of  the 
radical  Republican  party  in  Pennsylvania.  He  had  been  identified  with  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  movement  that  resulted  in  the  Whisky  Rebellion.  In  par- 
ticular, he  had  keenly  criticized  Hamilton's  financial  policy;  and,  next  to 
Hamilton,  he  proved  perhaps  our  greatest  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

2 Among  the  first  judicial  "Reports." 

3  The  first  volume  of  its  kind,  and  long  the  only  one. 

396        , 


THOMAS  JEFFERSON  397 

with  gentle  suggestion,  the  politics  of  a  distant  State,  discussing  with  a 
French  scientist  the  latest  discovery  in  that  celebrity's  special  field,  or  in- 
diting some  other  form  of  that  voluminous  correspondence  which  well 
earns  him  the  title  "  the  greatest  American  letter- writer/1 

Jefferson's  character  is  not  to  be  painted  by  bold  strokes  —  only  by 
delicate  pencilings.  By  hostile  critics,  these  fine  shadings  were  natu- 
rally misunderstood  to  imply  weakness  or  hypocrisy.  He  was  an  intel- 
lectual aristocrat,  but  the  prophet  of  democracy;  a  theorist  of  wildest 
speculations,  but  an  astute  practical  politician  upon  all  immediate  prob- 
lems; a  shy  man,  averse  to  public  speaking  or  public  appearances,  but 
a  popular  dictator. 

In  1800  he  had  already  had  a  distinguished  and  varied 
career.  He  entered  the  Virginia  Assembly  in  the  memorable 
session  of  1769;  (§  139).  Four  years  later  he  was  one  of  the 
leader's  in  tfrat  body  in  organizing  the  first  Intercolonial  Com- 
mittee of  Correspondence  (§  140).  In  1775  he  became  a  dele- 
gate to  the  Continental  Congress  (§  150).  A  year  later  he  was 
again  in,  the  Virginia  Assembly,  to  lead,  almost  alone,  a  social 
revolution!  in  ;tha£' State,  by  legislation,  amid  all  the  turmoil  of 
war.  Under  his  guidance,  the  radical  reform  party,  in  1777- 
1778,  prohibited  further  importation  of  slaves  into  the  State ; 
swept  away  the  church  establishment,  along  with  every  vestige 
of  ancient  checks  upon  religious  freedom;  overthrew  the  semi- 
feudal  bulwarks  of  primogeniture  and  entail,1  whereby  the 
landed  aristocracy  had  intrenched  itself;  and  exchanged  the 
complex  barbarities  of  the  old  legal  system  (§  120)  for  a  new 
code  marvelously  simple,  compact,  and  humane.2 

!Cf.  §  124  and  note,  and  §  182,  note.  The  aristocratic  opposition  was  par- 
ticularly bitter  here.  The  leaders  pleaded  for  at  least  a  double  inheritance  for 
the  oldest  son.  Not  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  oldest  son  needs  twice  as 
much  to  feed  and  clothe  him,  replied  Jefferson.  Soon  after,  Jefferson's  only 
son,  a  babe,  died  from  exposure  in  a  mid-winter  flight  from  a  Tory  raid ;  and 
the  aristocratic  planters  were  not  ashamed  to  call  this  calamity  a  "  righteous 
judgment  of  God,"  destroying  the  family  of  the  man  who  had  wished  to  de- 
stroy all  families. 

2  The  solid  support  of  the  Scotch-Irish  western  counties  was  what  made 
these  reforms  possible.    Jefferson's  aims  had  been  even  more  far-reaching. 


398      JEFFERSONIAN  REPUBLICANISM,   1800-1812 

Jefferson's  victory  in  this  struggle  Americanized  Virginia 
and  consolidated  there  the  democratic  party  he  was  afterward 
to  organize  for  the  nation  at  large.  Daring  1779-1780  he 
served  as  governor  of  Virginia.  Then  after  brief  retirement, 
due  to  private  griefs,  he  reappeared  in  the  Continental  Con- 
gress in  1783,  for  brief  but  distinguished  service  there  (§  181). 
In  1785  he  began  a  five-year  residence  in  France  as  American 
Minister.  He  watched  the  early  stages  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion with  eager  sympathy,  and  while  preserving  in  public  the 
proper  impartial  attitude  of  a  foreign  minister,  he  was  in 
private  the  valued  adviser  of  Lafayette  and  other  reformers, 
whose  inexperienced  enthusiasm  he  was  sometimes  able  to 
direct  wisely. 

French  thought  now  secured  a  strong  influence  upon  him ; 
but  his  admiration  for  that  country  in  no  way  weakened  his 
patriotism.  He  urged  Monroe  to  come  to  Europe,  "  because 
it  will  make  you  adore  your  own  country,  its  soil,  climate, 
equality,  liberty,  laws,  people,  manners " ;  and  he  predicted 
that,  while  many  Europeans  would  remove  to  America,  no  man 
then  living  would  see  an  American  seek  a  home  in  Europe.  In 
1790  he  returned  to  America  to  take  a  place  in  Washington's 
Cabinet,  and  then  to  build  skillfully  the  party  of  the  people 
which  triumphed  in  his  election  to  the  presidency. 

The  two  things  that  men  remember  against  this  extended  background 
of  varied  activity  are  :  (i)  that  Jefferson  gave  immortal  form  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  political  Revolution  of  1776,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence; and  (2)  that  he  embodied  in  himself  the  democratic  ideals  and 
aspirations  of  the  equally  important  social  "revolution  of  1800."  The 
modest  shaft  that  marks  his  resting  place  bears  only  the  words  (selected 
by  himself),  "  Author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  of  the  statute 
of  Virginia  for  Religious  freedom,  and  Father  of  the  University  of  Vir- 

He  had  hoped  for  gradual  emancipation  of  slaves  and  for  a  noble  system  of  pub- 
lic schools.  The  latter  scheme  he  returned  to  enthusiastically,  but  with  little 
result,  in  his  old  age ;  but  his  plans  for  the  University  of  Virginia,  which  he 
reorganized,  did  work  out  the  main  lines  along  which  the  State  Universities 
were  afterwards  to  develop. 


JEFFERSON'S  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLES  399 

ginia."  None  of  these  achievements  belonged  to  the  period  of  the  presi- 
dency ;  but,  with  true  insight,  Jefferson  represented  in  that  epitaph  his 
work  in  three  related  fields, — political  liberty,  religious  liberty,  and 
higher  popular  education.1  To  that  simple  epitaph  history  adds  the 
proud  dictum  of  one  of  his  biographers:  "If  America  is  right,  Thomas 
Jefferson  was  right." 

253.  Jefferson's  political  principles,  for  domestic  concerns, 
were  (1)  trust  in  the  people ;  (2)  restriction  of  all  government, 
especially  of  the  Central  government ; 2  (3)  frugality ;  (4)  sim- 
plicity ;  and  (5)  "  encouragement  of  agriculture,  and  of  com- 
merce as  her  handmaid,"  rather  than  of  manufactures.  As  to 
foreign  affairs,  he  hoped  to  begin  a  golden  age  of  peace.  War 
was  a  blunder.  Army  and  navy  we  could  dispense  with.  At 
most,  we  could  need  only  "  commercial  coercion  "  to  secure  our 
rights  from  other  nations :  "  Our  commerce  is  so  valuable  to 
them  that  they  will  be  glad  to  purchase  it  when  the  only  price 
we  ask  is  that  they  do  us  justice." 

Most  of  these  principles  are  summed  up  admirably  in  Jefferson's  first 
inaugural.  "Absolute  acquiescence  in  the  decisions  of  the  majority  is 
the  vital  principle  of  republics."  The  best  government  is  one  that  "  while 
it  restrains  men  from  injuring  one  another,  shall  leave  them  otherwise  free 
to  regulate  their  own  pursuits,  and  shall  not  take  from  the  mouth  of  labor 
the  bread  it  has  earned."     He  declares  his  purpose  to  secure  "equal  and 

1  It  is  characteristic  that,  at  the  close  of  his  brief  Autobiography,  in 
speculating  upon  possible  services  to  his  fellows  (most  of  which  services,  he 
adds,  would  have  been  performed  anyway  by  some  one  else,  and  some  of 
them,  no  doubt,  better),  he  gives  prominent  place  to  his  efforts  in  rendering 
navigable  a  little  Virginia  creek  and  to  his  introduction  into  South  Carolina 
of  a  heavier  and  better  rice  than  before  grown  in  America;  adding,  "The 
greatest  service  which  can  be  rendered  to  any  country  is  to  add  a  useful 
plant  to  its  cultivation,  especially  a  bread  grain."  Students  should  read,  if 
accessible,  Jefferson's  own  account  of  his  reform  legislation  in  Virginia 
{Works,  Washington  ed.,  I,  49,  and  175). 

2  Government  in  that  day  was  almost  wholly  repressive,  —  or  beneficent  to 
a  privileged  class  only,  at  the  expense  of  other  classes.  It  did  not  yet  dream 
of  providing  schools,  libraries,  hospitals,  asylums,  weather  bureaus,  or  the 
manifold  other  activities  of  general  helpfulness  now  belonging  to  it.  In  the 
closing  years  of  his  administration,  Jefferson  became  one  of  the  early  advo- 
cates of  this  wider  helpfulness  (§  266). 


,1 


400      JEFFERSONIAN   REPUBLICANISM,   1800-1812 

exact  justice  to  all  men";  to  maintain  "peace,  commerce,  and  honest 
friendship  with  all  nations,  entangling  alliances  with  none"  ;  to  enforce 
"  economy  in  the  public  expense,  that  labor  may  be  lightly  burdened  "  ; 
and  to  defend  "  freedom  of  religion,  freedom  of  the  press,  and  freedom 
of  the  person." 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  years  later,  when  rude  experience  had 
shattered  his  noble  dream  of  universal  peace,  Jefferson  turned  to  a  vision 
of  a  New-World  peace,  with  the  United  States  as  the  protecting  elder 
brother  of  American  nations.  He  hopes  for  "  fraternization  among  all 
American  nations,"  and  dwells  upon  the  importance  of  their  "  coalescing 
in  an  American  policy  totally  independent  cf  that  of  Europe,"  adding, 
"  When  our  strength  will  permit  us  to  give  the  law  to  our  hemisphere,  it 
should  be  that  the  meridian  of  the  mid-Atlan\ic  should  be  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  peace  and  war,  —  on  this  side  of  which  no  act  of 
hostility  should  be  permitted."  And  again,  "  The  day  is  not  far  distant 
when  we  [the  United  States]  may  formally  require  a  median  of  partition 
through  the  ocean,  on  the  hither  side  of  which  no  European  gun  shall 
ever  be  fired,  nor  an  American  on  the  other,  and  when,  during  the  rage 
of  eternal  war  in  Europe,  the  lion  and  the  lamb  within  our  regions  shall 
lie  down  in  peace."  1 

254.  Reform.  —  In  tendering  Livingston  a  place  in  the  Cabi- 
net, Jefferson  in  private  urged  him  to  accept,  that  he  might 
be  of  service  in  "  the  new  establishment  of  Republicanism.  I 
say  its  new  establishment ;  for  hitherto  we  have  seen  only  its 
travestie."  The  Republican  victory  was  a  real  "  revolution." 
(Cf.  theme  sentence  for  the  chapter.)  It  marked  the  resump- 
tion, as  is  often  said,  of  the  earlier  Revolutionary  progress 
toward  democracy  and  Americanization,  which  had  been  tem- 
porarily checked,  from  1786  to  1800,  by  the  conservative  cru- 
sade for  a  stronger  government.  At  the  same  time,  the  change 
was  rather  in  the  pervading  spirit  of  the  new  administration 
than  in  specific  legislation,  and  most  of  Jefferson's  public  speech 
was  extremely  conciliatory  to  his  former  opponents. 

Jeffersonian  simplicity  has  become  a  byword.  On  the  morn- 
ing of  his  inauguration;  discarding  previous  practice  as  to  a 
coach  and  four  on  such  occasions,  Jefferson  walked  quietly 
from  his  boarding   house  to  the  capitol  to  take  the  oath  of 

l  Works,  Washington  ed.,  VI,  33,  54,  268;  VII,  168-169,  315-317. 


THE   "REVOLUTION  OF  1800"  401 

office.  From  the  first  lie  set  the  example  that  all  communica- 
tion wiih  Congress,  even  the  opening  messages,  should  be  by 
writing.  And  on  matters  of  hospitality  at  the  White  House, 
he  discarded  the  elaborate  and  courtly  ceremonial  of  Washing- 
ton and  Adams. 

Not  much  legal  reform  was  found  necessary.  The  vicious 
Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  had  been  limited  in  time,  and  had 
expired.  The  fourteen-year  Naturalization  law  of  1797  was 
repealed,  along  with  all  internal  revenue  taxes  (whisky  tax  and 
stamp  duties),  and  the  judiciary  act  of  1801 1  (§  290). 

In  the  past  the  administration  had  had  the  employment  of 
whatever  funds  Congress  raised.  Now  Jefferson  and  Gallatin 
limited  their  own  power  in  this  tremendous  matter,  by  calling 
upon  Congress  to  make  specific  appropriations  only  —  a  prece- 
dent since  followed. 

The  debt  had  never  been  decreased  materially  by  the  Federalists  ;  and 
the  war  flurry  of  1798  had  raised  it,  through  new  loans,  to  $83,000,000, 
with  an  interest  charge  each  year  of  $3,500,000.  During  the  last  years 
of  Federalist  rule,  moreover,  ordinary  expenditure  had  outrun  ordinary 
income.  Jefferson  and  Gallatin  computed  retrenchment  such  that  sixteen 
years  of  Republican  rule  might  pay  off  the  debt,  even  after  giving  up  all 
internal  taxes.  The  tariff  and  sale  of  public  lands  could  be  counted  upon 
to  bring  in  $10,000,000  a  year.  The  $6,000,000  formerly  spent  on  army 
and  navy  Was  cut  to  $1,000,000  (the  army  being  decreased  to  3000  men 
and  most  of  the  war  vessels  being  docked),2  and  every  saving  possible  in 
any  other  department  was  rigidly  enforced.  At  the  end  of  Jefferson's 
eight  years,  in  spite  of  the  addition  of   $15,000,000  to  the  debt  in  1803 


1  The  Federalists  charged  that  this  repeal  was  unconstitutional.  Congress 
is  forbidden  by  the  Constitution  to  decrease  the  salary  of  a  judge,  or  to  dis- 
miss him  from  office.  Can  it,  then,  take  salary  and  office  from  the  judge  by 
abolishing  the  court  ?  To  prevent  a  possible  interference  from  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  sittings  of  that  body  were  adjourned  by  law  for  some  months,  and 
the  Court  never  thought  best  to  bring  the  matter  to  decision.  The  Federalist 
charge  that  the  Republicans  had  dragged  the  judiciary  into  politics  was  ab- 
surd. 

2  War  with  the  Barbary  Pirates,  and  Indian  troubles,  soon  trebled  this  out- 
lay ;  but  the  increased  revenue  from  tariffs,  due  to  our  growing  commerce, 
made  good  the  difference. 


402  THE   "REVOLUTION   OF   1800" 

for  Louisiana  (§  259),  the  total  had  sunk  to  857,000,000,  with  an  interest 
charge  of  only  $2,000,000  a  year.     Promises  had  been  well  kept. 

255.  Civil  Service.1  —  Washington  and  Adams  had  excluded 
Republicans  from  all  office.  They  had  not  had  to  dismiss  any : 
none  got  in.  This  policy,  too,  had  been  emphatically  avowed.2 
Now  came  the  first  change  of  party.  If  Jefferson  followed  his 
predecessors'  policy  to  its  logical  results,  he  would  dismiss  all 
officeholders,  to  make  room  for  Republican  supporters.  His 
opponents  feared  this  result,  and  many  supporters  hoped  it. 

Washington  and  Adams  did  not  use  office  to  pay  for  party 
services :  they  did  use  it  to  strengthen  the  "  right  party " 
(their  party)  and  so  "  save  the  country."  But  this  attitude, 
while  morally  very  far  from  the  later  spoils  system  of  Jack- 
son's day,  was  practically  sure  to  glide  into  that  system.  Jef- 
ferson has  been  accused  of  introducing  the  spoils  system, 
because  it  fell  to  him  to  make  the  first  removals.  But  accord- 
ing to  Professor  Channing's  careful  study  (Jeffersonian  System, 
10-17),  "  removals  for  political  reasons  were  astonishingly  few 
.  .  .  less  than  twenty  .  .  .  mostly  of  marshals  and  district 
attorneys;"3  and  spite  of  all  changes  from  various  causes,  more 
than  half  of  the  officials  of  March  4,  1801,  were  still  holding 
office  four  years  later.     A  President  who  himself  moved  for  the 

1  This  term  is  applied  to  the  active  body  of  public  servants  outside  the 
army  and  navy,  and  not  including  the  members  of  tbe  courts,  legislators, 
and  heads  of  executive  departments. 

2  Washington  wrote  to  Pickering,  his  Secretary  of  War  in  his  second  ad- 
ministration :  "I  shall  not,  while  I  have  the  honor  of  administering  the 
government,  bring  a  man  into  any  office  of  consequence,  knowingly,  whose 
political  tenets  are  adverse  to  the  measures  the  general  government  are  pur- 
suing; for  this,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  a  sort  of  political  suicide."  And 
Senator  Bayard,  as  mouthpiece  for  Adams,  declared,  "  The  politics  of  the 
office-seeker  will  be  the  great  object  of  the  President's  attention,  and  an 
invincible  objection  if  different  from  his  own." 

8  From  the  very  first,  Jefferson  stated  his  intention  to  make  some  removals 
from  these  offices  as  tbe  only  means  left  to  him  to  partly  correct  the  Federal- 
ist monopoly  of  the  courts  and  their  partisan  attitude.  "The  doorways" 
to  that  branch  of  the  government  he  would  keep  open  by  appointing  some 
Republican  marshals  and  attorneys. 


THE   CIVIL  SERVICE  403 

abolition  of  a  fourth  of  all  his  appointing  power,  by  abolishing 
internal  taxes  and  the  offices  connected  with  their  collection, 
did  not  desire  patronage  for  partisan  purposes.  Jefferson's  few 
partisan  removals  (all  made  under  strong  provocation)  had  far 
less  to  do  with  establishing  a  spoils  system  than  did  the  many 
partisan  appointments  by  Washington  and  Adams. 

Moreover,  Jefferson  and  Gallatin  were  the  first  statesmen  in 
the  world  to  think  out  the  principles  upon  which  alone  a  non- 
partisan civil  service  can  be  permanently  maintained.1  They 
saw  and  said  that  each  officeholder  ought  to  be  at  liberty  to 
think  and  vote  as  his  conscience  led,  but  that,  to  preserve  this 
freedom,  he  must  refrain  from  "  electioneering  activity"  or,  in 
modern  phrase,  from  "  offensive  partisanship."  2 


1  These  principles  were  recognized  in  England  some  fifty  years  later,  and  a 
generation  later  still,  in  America;  and  only  then  did  a  rational  civil  service 
begin  in  either  country.   Cf .  §  415. 

2  Gallatin  prepared  a  circular  to  warn  subordinates  in  his  department  that 
"  while  freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  suffrage  are  imprescriptible  rights, 
the  President  would  regard  any  exercise  of  official  influence  to  control  the 
same  rights  in  others  as  destructive  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  a  Repub- 
lican constitution  "  ;  and  the  accompanying  letter  to  Jefferson  makes  clear 
that  this  was  to  apply  to  official  activity  for  the  administration  as  well  as 
against  it.  Jefferson's  views  are  set  forth  in  his  Works  (Washington  ed.),  IV, 
381,  383,  391,  402,  451,  559.    Some  extracts  follow :  — 

"  Mr.  Adams'  last  appointments,  vjhen  he  knew  he  was  naming  counsellors 
and  aids  for  me  and  not  for  himself,  I  set  aside  as  far  as  depends  on  me,  and 
will  not  deliver  commissions  where  still  in  executive  hands.  Officers  who 
have  been  guilty  of  gross  abuses  of  office,  such  as  marshalls  packing  juries, 
etc.  [to  secure  conviction  under  prosecution  for  "sedition  "],  I  shall  now  re- 
move, as  my  predecessor  should  have  done.  .  .  .  The  right  of  opinion  shall 
suffer  no  invasion  from  me"  (Letter  to  Gerry,  March  29,  1801).  He  then 
thought  that  "  of  the  thousands  of  officers  in  the  United  States,  a  very  few 
individuals  only,  probably  not  twenty,  will  be  removed  "  (Letter  to  Rush, 
March  24).  Later  he  adds  "  industrious  partisanship  "  as  a  proper  cause  for 
removal;  and  July  21,  in  reply  to  Federalist  critics,  he  asks  whether 
the  minority  expect  to  continue  to  monopolize  the  offices  from  which,  when  in 
power,  they  excluded  all  their  opponents,  and  queries  how  a  "  due  participa- 
tion "  for  the  majority  is  to  be  obtained,  since  vacancies  "  by  death  are  few, 
by  resignation,  none."  About  a  year  later  he  admits  that  his  program  has 
not  been  followed  "with  the  undeviating  resolution  I  could  have  wished  " 
(Letter  to  Lincoln,  Oct.  25,  1802). 


404  THE   "REVOLUTION  OF  1800" 

256.  Attempts  on  the  Judiciary.  — Even  after  the  repeal  of 
the  Judiciary  Act  of  1801,  the  Federalists  remained  in  com- 
plete possession  of  the  courts.  Jefferson  felt  keenly  the  need 
of  some  change.     In  December  of   1801  he  wrote : 

"They  [the  Federalists]  have  retired  into  the  Judiciary  as  a  strong- 
hold. There  the  remains  of  Federalism  are  to  be  preserved  and  fed  from 
the  treasury ;  and  from  that  battery  all  the  works  of  Republicanism  are 
to  be  beaten  down  and  destroyed." 

The  principles  of  the  Republicans  forbade  them  to  enlarge 
the  courts,  and  so  get  control  by  new  appointments  ;  and  there- 
fore they  tried,  half-heartedly,  to  get  room  for  foothold  by  im- 
peaching some  of  the  old  judges.  Justice  Pickering,  of  the 
New  Hampshire  District,  was  removed  on  the  undisputed 
charge  of  drunkenness  while  on  duty ; 1  but  an  attempt  to  re- 
move Justice  Chase,  of  the  Supreme  Court,  for  partisan  and 
unjudicial  conduct  failed  of  the  necessary  two  thirds  vote  in 
the  Senate,  and  the  movement  was  dropped. 

[For  discussion  with  books  open.'] 

To  a  degree  almost  unbelievable  to-day,  the  courts  of  1800  were  the 
mouthpieces  of  political  partisanship.  Chief  Justice  Dana  of  Massachu- 
setts, in  1798,  during  a  political  campaign,  in  a  charge  to  a  grand  jury 
designed  to  influence  public  opinion  and  votes,  attacked  the  Republican 
party  (including  Jefferson  especially)  as  "apostles  of  atheism,  anarchy, 
bloodshed,  and  plunder."  In  1800  Judge  Addison  of  a  Pennsylvania 
court,  on  a  like  occasion,  said  of  the  Republican  party,  "  In  their 
sheep's  clothing  they  are  ravening  wolves."  For  this  disgraceful  abuse 
of  judicial  position,  Addison  was  properly  removed,  when  the  Republicans 
came  into  possession  of  the  State  government ;  but  Federalist  Massachu- 
setts supported  and  commended  Dana.  His  charge  was  toasted  at  a 
Boston  banquet,  as  dictated  by  "intelligence,  integrity,  and  patriotism." 
Even  Washington  so  approved  it  that  he  sent  copies  to  his  friends. ' 

1  The  Federalists  defended  Pickering  on  the  ground  of  insanity,  —  insisting 
at  the  same  time  that  there  was  no  constitutional  ground  for  impeachment.  In- 
deed, it  is  generally  held  that  the  "high  crimes  and  misdemeanors "  named  in 
the  Constitution  as  the  occasion  for  impeachment,  must  be  such  offenses  as  the 
accused  man  might  be  indicted  for  before  a  criminal  court.  The  difficulty 
was  evaded  in  the  Senate  by  voting  that  Pickering  was  "guilty  as  charged." 


THE  JUDICIARY  405 

Chase  had  given  even  greater  cause  of  offense.  In  1803,  in  a  charge 
to  a  Maryland  grand  jury,  he  had  declared  that  by  the  repeal  of  the 
Judiciary  Act  of,  1801  "the  independence  of  the  national  judiciary  is 
already  shaken  to  its  foundation ; ' '  and  that  this,  together  with  attempts 
to  modify  the  system  of  courts  in  Maryland  and  to  establish  manhood 
suffrage  there,  "will,  in  my  judgment,  take  away  all  security  for  prop- 
erty and  personal  liberty. ."  1  Chase  had  presided  also  at  two  "sedition  " 
trials,  and  had  manifested  there  a  partisan  and  browbeating  disposition 
worthy  a  seventeenth-century  Jeffreys.  Twice  his  violence  drove  from 
the  court  the  most  eminent  lawyers  of  the  circuit ;  and  he  had  broken  up 
the  sessions  in  order  to  make  political  speeches  in  the  campaign  of  1800. 

The  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  impeach  Chase  has  been  generally  ap- 
plauded by  historians;  but,  says  Professor  Channing  sturdily  (Jeffer- 
sonian  System,  121)  :  "  Surely  there  is  something  absurd  in  the  general 
contention  that  a  Federal  judge  like  Samuel  Chase  should  hold  office  for 
life  and  be  at  full  liberty  to  criticise  in  the  most  insolent  way  the  agents 
to  whom  the  people  had  intrusted  the  management  of  their  affairs." 

257.    Excursus :     John     Marshall :     Marbury    vs.    Madison.  — 

To-day  Americans  in  general  agree  that  it  was  well  for  Jeffer- 
son to  fail  at  the  time  in  the  attack  npon  the  Judiciary,  how- 
ever great  his  provocation.  In  coming  years  the  Union  was 
to  need  all  the  strength  the  courts  could  give.  Jefferson's 
failure  left  John  Marshall  free  to  complete  Hamilton's  work 
and  to  make  a  National  constitution  by  judicial  construction. 

Marshall  was  one  of  Adams'  late  appointments.  He  served 
as  Chief  Justice  from  1801  to  1835,  and  his  marvelous  influ- 

1  "The  change  of  the  State  constitution,"  continued  Chase,  "  by  allowing 
universal  suffrage,  will,  in  my  opinion,  certainly  and  rapidly  destroy  all  pro- 
tection to  property  and  all  security  to  personal  liberty ;  and  our  republican 
constitution  will  sink  into  a  mobocracy,  the  worst  of  all  possible  governments. 
...  I  can  only  lament  that  the  main  pillar  of  our  State  constitution  has 
already  been  thrown  down  by  the  establishment  of  universal  suffrage.  By 
this  shock  alone,  the  whole  building  totters  to  its  base,  and  will  crumble  into 
ruins  before  many  years,  unless  it  be  restored  to  its  original  state.  .  .  .  The 
modern  doctrines  .  .  .  that  all  men  in  a  state  of  society  are  entitled  to  enjoy 
equal  liberty  and  equal  rights,  have  brought  this  mighty  mischief  upon  us." 
Compare  this  tone  with  Ludlow's  dismay  in  1632  at  the  idea  of  representa- 
tive government  at  all  (§  63) ,  and  with  frantic  modern  opposition  to  the  move- 
ment for  the  recall. 


406  THE  ''REVOLUTION  OF  1800" 

ence  over  his  associates  brought  to  his  way  of  thought  five 
Kepublican  justices  appointed  by  Jefferson  and  Madison  to 
outweigh  him.  He  was  a  man  of  simple,  manners,  of  direct, 
upright,  engaging  character,  and  of  mighty  intellect,  but  of 
strong  prejudices;  and  his  admirers  admit  that  he  used  his 
position  to  advance  political  views  in  a  way  that  would  to-day 
not  be  regarded  proper. 

Adams'  appointments  had  been  completed  so  late  on  March  3 
that  some  of  the  commissions  to  marshals  and  attorneys  were 
left  lying  undelivered  on  the  executive  table.  Jefferson  de- 
clared such  papers  of  no  account,  and  made  new  appointments. 
A  certain  Marbury,  whom  Adams  had  named  as  marshal  for 
the  District  of  Columbia,  sued  in  the  Supreme  Court  for  a 
writ  of  mandamus,  to  compel  Madison  (Secretary  of  State)  to 
issue  to  him  his  withheld  commission.  Marshall's  opinion 
has  made  this  case  one  of  the  most  important  in  our  history, 
though  it  was  "phrased  in  such  a  manner,"  says  Professor 
Channing  (Jeffersonian  System,  118),  "that  this  is  the  one  deci- 
sion in  Marshall's  judicial  career  which  still  gives  pain  to  all 
but  his  blindest  admirers." l 

The  court  declared,  through  Marshall's  pen,  (1)  that  Mar- 
bury  was  legally  entitled  to  the  commission  and  that  its  re- 
fusal was  a  plain  violation  of  a  vested  right ;  but  (2)  that  no 
remedy  could  come  in  the  way  sought ;  and  (3)  that  the  suit 
was  therefore  dismissed.  The  importance  of  the  decision  lay 
in  its  reasoning  on  the  second  point.  The  Judiciary  Act  of 
1789  had  distinctly  given  the  Supreme  Court  authority  to  issue 
just  such  writs  ;  but,  since  the  Constitution  itself  did  not  name 
any  such  contest  between  a  citizen  and  a  public  officer  as  in- 
cluded in  the  original  jurisdiction  for  the  Supreme  Court,  that 
particular  provision  of  the  law  of  1789  was  now  declared  un- 
constitutional and  void. 


1  Since  Marshall  had  heen  acting  through  March  3  as  Adams'  Secretary  of 
State,  in  signing  commissions,  and  since  he  was  himself  one  of  the  late 
appointments,  he  came  perilously  near  acting  as  judge  in  a  case  in  which  he 
was  himself  vitally  interested. 


\  \ 


THE   THIRD   TERM   PRINCIPLE  407 


This  was  the  first  time  the  Supreme  Court  declared  void  any  part  of  an 
Act  of  Congress.1  The  clause  was  one  conferring  power  upon  the  court 
itself.  No  other  so  modest  opportunity  could  have  been  found.  But  the 
argument  of  the  Chief  Justice  went  on,  far  beyond  the  immediate  case, 
to  establish  this  power  of  the  courts  in  all  cases  where,  in  their  judg- 
ment, they  might  find  conflict  between  a  law  and  the  fundamental  law. 
The  decision  was  to  become  the  basis  for  future  extension  of  power  in  this 
important  respect2 

258.  Unwritten  Limitation  of  Presidential  Term :  Foreign  Slave 
Trade  Abolished :  Republicanism  Modified.  —  In  1804  Jefferson 
was  reelected  by  162  electoral  votes  to  14 ;  and  even  in  the 
Senate  of  thirty-four  members,  there  were  only  seven  Federal- 
ists. Jefferson's  popularity  seemed  higher  than  ever.  Early 
in  his  second  term,  the  Vermont  legislature  requested  him 
to  permit  his  name  to  be  used  a  third  time,  for  the  campaign 
of  1808,  and  this  nomination  was  promptly  seconded  by  legis- 
latures in  seven  other  States.  Jefferson  declined,  and  used 
the  opportunity  to  establish  firmly  one  more  Republican  doc- 
trine,—  a  limitation  to  possible  reelections  of  the  executive. 

Washington's  refusal  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  third  term  had  no  con- 
stitutional bearing.  Indeed,  Washington  seems  to  have  believed  in 
many  reelections.  He  refused  for  purely  personal  reasons,  and  he  felt  it 
needful  to  excuse  himself  against  a  possible  charge  of  lack  of  patriotism 
in  laying  down  his  task.  Jefferson  declined,  in  order  to  establish  a  prin- 
ciple, and  he  strengthened  it  by  appealing  to  Washington's  precedent. 

1  In  1792  a  Circuit  Court  had  refused  certain  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  an 
Act  of  Congress  as  not  warranted  by  the  Constitution  ;  but  the  decision  was 
brief,  and  confined  to  the  particular  case,  and  it  had  not  come  up  for  review 
by  the  Supreme  Court.  Cf.  Professor  Farrand  on  "The  First  Hayburn  Case," 
in  Amer.  Hist.  Review  for  January,  1908. 

2  Review  §  207,  a  and  b.  The  student  should  read  carefully,  on  the  use  of 
this  power  in  later  history,  Baldwin's  American  Judiciary,  105-107.  The 
real  development  of  this  vast  power  has  come  since  the  great  Civil  War. 
Indeed  there  were  only  two  other  cases  in  the  sixty  years  preceding  that  war, 
one  in  1851  (U?iited  States  v.  Ferreira),  which,  like  the  Marbury  case,  in- 
volved a  question  about  the  judiciary  itself,  and  the  Dred  Scott  case  in  1857 
(§  353).  Since  the  Civil  War  (in  some  forty-five  years),  there  have  been 
about  twenty  such  cases  —  many  of  them  of  very  great  moment. 


408  JEFFERSONIAN   REPUBLICANISM 

Some  limit,  he  said,  should  be  fixed  by  custom  (since  none  was  specified 
in  the  Constitution),  or  the  President's  tenure  might  come  to  be  for  life. 
The  limit  should  be  two  terms,  as  already  suggested  by  Washington's 
action.  Originally  he  (Jefferson)  had  favored  one  term  of  seven  years  ; 
but  now  eight  years  seemed  better,  "  with  possible  removal  at  the  end  of 
four  years."  Any  longer  tenure  would  be  dangerous  to  Republican  in- 
stitutions. 

This  response  caught  the  popular  imagination.  Addresses  poured  in 
from  mass  meetings  and  legislatures  approving  its  patriotism  and  its  doc- 
trine, and  expressing  ardent  hope  that  the  example  might  be  followed  in 
succeeding  history.  The  principle  became  at  once  so  firmly  imbedded  in 
our  unwritten  constitution  that  only  once  has  an  attempt  been  made  to 
override  it  (§  416). 

Most  of  Jefferson's  second  administration  was  taken  up  with 
foreign  affairs  (§  266)  ;  and,  even  in  such  attention  ad  domestic 
matters  received,  a  new  tone  of  centralization  was  noticeable. 
Republicanism  had  been  modified  by  the  very  completeness  of  its 
victory.  Nearly  half  its  adherents  now  had  formerly  been  Fed- 
eralists, and  still  remained  half  Federalist  in  political  thought. 
Moreover,  the  "  Old  Republicans "  themselves,  under  the  re- 
sponsibilities and  opportunities  of  office,  began  to  feel  differ- 
ently toward  the  power  of  the  Government  (§  261  ff.).  One 
more  deed,  however,  recalls  vividly  Jefferson's  earlier  teach- 
ings. In  1807,  on  his  recommendation,  Congress  decreed  that 
the  importation  of  slaves  should  cease  the  following  year  (the 
earliest  moment  possible  under  the  Constitution  (Art.  I,  sec.  9). 

II.     TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION 

259.  Acquisition  of  "Louisiana."  —  The  East  was  coming 
slowly  to  sympathize  with  the  attitude  of  the  West  toward 
Spain's  possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  (§  175). 
Jefferson  had  always  done  so.1     Man  of  peace  as  he  was,  he 

1  In  1786  Jay  had  proposed  to  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  a  treaty 
with  Spain,  whereby,  in  return  for  certain  commercial  concessions,  we  were 
to  surrender  for  twenty-five  years  all  claim  to  navigate  the  Mississippi.  At 
first  the  East  seemed  to  favor  this ;  but  Jefferson  wrote  from  Paris,  in  solemn 
warning,  "  The  act  which  abandons  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  is  an  act 
of  separation  between  us  and  the  Western  country." 


- 


NORTH  AMERICA5 

1800 

SCALE  OF  MILES 


|          [  United  States  ~]  Enyland 
1          \Spain    \~W\  France     £        }  Kussia 
Southern  extent  of  Russia's  Claim,  1821 


THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE  409 

had  said  that  such  portions  of  the  vast  domain  of  dying  Spain 
as  we  wanted  must  come  to  us  in  time,  —  by  force  if  necessary. 
But  late  in  1801  fell  a  thunderbolt :  Spain  had  secretly  ceded 
Louisiana  back  to  France,  then  the  most  aggressive  and  power- 
ful of  European  nations.  Congress  hastily  passed  a  war  appro- 
priation; and  Jefferson,  spite  of  his  French  sympathies,  saw 
that  we  must  at  once1  fight  or  purchase. 

Was  it  likely  Napoleon  would  sell  what  he  had  striven  so 
eagerly  to  get  ?  At  all  events,  Livingstone,  our  minister  to 
France,  was  instructed  to  buy  the  island  of  New  Orleans,  and 
Monroe  was  sent  hastily,  as  special  envoy,  to  help  him.  Mon- 
roe found  a  great  and  unexpected  bargain  practically  com- 
pleted. Napoleon  had  suddenly  changed  front ;  and,  April  30, 
1803,  for  the  petty  price  of  $15,000,000,  the  United  States 
doubled  its  territory. 

A  splendid  army  of  twenty-five  thousand  French  veterans  had  just 
wasted  away,  against  tropical  fever  and  the  generalship  of  the  Negro 
leader  Toussaint  L'Ouverture,  in  an  attempt  to  secure  Haiti  as  a  half- 
way station  to  Louisiana.  Napoleon  hesitated  to  send  more  of  his  sol- 
diers to  hold  the  swamps  at  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  against  American 
frontiersmen  swarming  down  that  stream.  Moreover,  he  had  already 
decided  secretly  upon  a  new  war  with  England  ;  and  a  distant  colony 
would  be  exposed  to  almost  certain  seizure  by  the  English  navy.  Whether 
or  not  these  were  the  sole  causes,  Napoleon  abandoned  his  dream  of 
American  colonial  empire,  together  with  his  solemn  pledges  to  Spain,2 


1  Jefferson  said  that  France  had  become  our  foe  "by  the  laws  of  Nature." 
He  wrote  to  Livingstone  :  "  There  is  on  the  globe  one  single  spot,  the  posses- 
sor of  which  is  our  natural  .  .  .  enemy.  .  .  .  France,  placing  herself  in  that 
door,  assumes  to  us  an  attitude  of  defiance.  .  .  .  The  day  that  France  takes 
possession  of  New  Orleans  .  .  .  seals  the  union  of  two  nations  who,  in  con- 
junction, can  maintain  exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.  From  that  moment 
we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British  fleet  and  nation." 

2  Spain  hoped  to  find  compensation  for  Louisiana  by  interposing  France  as 
a  barrier  between  the  United  States  and  her  other  American  possessions. 
Talleyrand,  the  French  minister  who  managed  the  negotiations,  had  played 
upon  this  string.  "The  Americans,"  he  urged,  "  are  devoured  by  pride  and 
ambition,"  and  *  mean  at  any  cost  to  rule  alone  in  the  whole  continent. 
.  .  .  The  only  means  of  putting  an  end  to  their  ambition  is  to  shut  them  up 
within  the  limits  Nature  seems  to  have  traced  for  them  [east  of  the  Missis- 


410  JEFFERSONIAN   REPUBLICANISM 

and,  with  characteristic  abruptness,  forced  upon  the  American  negotiators 
not  merely  the  patch  of  ground  they  asked  for  at  the  river's  mouth,  but 
the  whole  western  half  of  the  great  river  valley,  —  which  they  had  not 
particularly  wanted. 

Monroe  had  been  authorized  to  offer,  if  necessary,  as  part  of  the  pur- 
chase price  for  New  Orleans,  a  guarantee  to  France  of  our  support  for 
her  perpetual  possession  of  the  western  half  of  the  valley.  Madison, 
who  drew  these  instructions,  sincerely  believed  at  that  time  that  we  had 
no  use  for  territory  beyond  the  Mississippi,  and  that  any  American  com- 
munity formed  there  must  inevitably  become  a  separate  nation  polit- 
ically. The  heart  of  the  American  people,  however,  was  immediately 
fired  by  the  grand  prospect  of  expansion  opened  before  us  ;  and  Jefferson 
wrote  a  few  weeks  later :  "  Objections  are  raising  to  the  eastward  [among 
leaders  of  New  England  Federalism]  to  the  vast  extent  of  our  territory, 
and  propositions  are  made  to  exchange  Louisiana,  or  a  part  of  it,  for  the 
Floridas.  But,  as  I  have  said,  we  shall  get  the  Floridas  without  [from 
Spain],  and  J  would  not  give  one  inch  of  the  waters  of  the  Mississippi  to  any 
foreign  power. " x 

260.  Three  Constitutional  questions  came  into  prominence  in 
connection  with  Jefferson's  treaty. 

a.  Power  to  acquire  territory  is  not  among  the  powers  of  gov- 
ernment enumerated  in  the  Constitution.  According  to  the 
"  strict  construction "  theory,  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  was 
unconstitutional.  Jefferson  wanted  an  amendment  to  confirm 
the  purchase: 


sippi].  .  .  .  Spain,  therefore,  cannot  too  quickly  engage  the  aid  of  a  prepon- 
derating power,  yielding  to  it  a  small  part  of  her  immense  dominions  in  order 
to  preserve  the  rest.  .  .  .  France  [mistress  of  Louisiana]  will  be  to  her  a 
wall  of  brass,  impenetrable  forever  to  the  combined  efforts  of  England  and 
America."  And  again,  he  urged,  under  Bonaparte's  instructions,  —  "  Spain 
will  do  a  wise  and  great  act  if  it  calls  France  to  the  defence  of  its  other 
colonies  by  ceding  Louisiana."  Finally,  a  specific  pledge  never  to  alienate 
the  province  to  America  became  part  of  the  price  France  paid. 

1  The  opposition  by  the  little  coterie  of  Federalist  leaders,  and  their  jealous 
dread  of  the  West,  proved  once  more  that  they  were  rightly  distrusted  by  the 
nation,  and  that  the  Jeffersonian  Republicans,  with  whatever  follies,  were 
"  the  safest  guardians  of  the  country,  because  they  believed  in  its  future  and 
strove  to  make  it  greater." 


THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE  411 

"  The  executive,"  he  wrote,  "  in  seizing  the  fugitive  occurrence  which 
so  much  advances  the  good  of  their  country,  have  done  an  act  beyond 
the  Constitution.  The  legislature  .  .  .  risking  themselves  like  faithful 
servants,  must  ratify  and  pay  for  it,  and  [then]  throw  themselves  on  the 
country  "  for  an  amendment,  which  should  be  also  "  an  act  of  indemnity." 

But  he  found  no  one  among  his  friends  willing  to  risk  the 
precious  prize  by  the  delay  incident  to  an  attempt  at  amend- 
ment. Such  a  move,  it  was  urged,  would  imply  that  the  pur- 
chase was  not  fully  ratified ;  and  meanwhile  Napoleon  might 
again  change  his  mind .  So  that  plan  was  dropped.  In  the 
debates  in  Congress,  Republican  members  adopted  frankly  the 
doctrine  of  "implied  powers."1  The  right  to  acquire  territory 
must  exist,  they  argued,  (1)  as  a  result  of  the  right  to  make 
treaties,  and  (2)  especially  of  the  power  to  make  war  and  peace. 
On  this  basis  they  voted  to  ratify  the  treaty  and  made  the  nec- 
essary appropriations  to  carry  it  into  effect. 

b.  Were  the  inhabitants  entitled  to  civil  and  political  rights? 
New  Orleans  and  its  vicinity  contained  a  population  of  50,000.2 
The  treaty  had  promised  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  district 
should  be  "  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  United  States," 
and  admitted,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  all  the  rights  of  citizens. 
The  Federalists  (adopting  the  state  sovereignty  doctrine)  based 
their  opposition  to  the  treaty  mainly  on  this  provision.  It 
meant,  they  said,  the  admission  of  a  new  member  to  "the 
partnership  of  States,"  and  this  was  not  permissible  "except 
by  the  consent  of  all  the  old  partners." 

The  Republicans  themselves  hesitated  to  carry  out  the 
promise  of  statehood  to  a  foreign  population  bitterly  aggrieved, 
as  it  was,  at  transfer  to  American  rule.  In  the  spring  of  1804 
Congress  divided  the  newly  acquired  region  into  two  parts. 
The  larger  northern  part  (almost  uninhabited),  styled  the 
"District  of  Louisiana,"  was  attached  to  Indiana  Territory 
(§  184,  close).     The  southern  part  was  created  "  The  Territory 


1  Some  of  them  appealed  even  to  the  "general  welfare "  clause. 

2  Nearly  half  these  were  slaves. 


412  JEFFERSONIAN  REPUBLICANISM 

of  New  Orleans ;  "  but  the  government  was  intrusted  to  a  gov- 
ernor, council,  and  judges  all  appointed  by  the  President,  with, 
provision  for  jury  trial  only  in  capital  cases.  This  was  a  de- 
nial, to  a  highly  civilized  and  densely  settled  district,  of  all 
right  of  self-government.1  It  seemed  strangely  out  of  place  at 
the  hand  of  Jeffersonians.  It  was  questioned  in  the  older 
States,  as  unconstitutional,  and  it  caused  loud  outcry  in  New 
Orleans.  Its  constitutionality  was  defended  on  the  ground 
that  the  guarantees  in  the  Constitution  applied  only  to  citi- 
zens of  the  States,  not  of  "territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States."2  But  the  question  of  conflict  with  the  purchase 
treaty  was  a  more  delicate  matter ;  and  a  year  later  the  Terri- 
tory of  New  Orleans  was  given  the  usual  Territorial  govern- 
ment (§§  182, 184),  similar  to  that  of  Indiana  and  Mississippi.3 
In  1811,  after  a  bitter  struggle  in  Congress,4  it  came  into  the 
Union  as  the  State  of  Louisiana. 

c.  The  treaty  promised  certain  exemptions  from  tariffs  to  French  and  Span- 
ish ships  in  Louisiana  ports  for  twelve  years.  The  Constitution  requires 
that  "all  duties  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States."  Was 
there  a  conflict  between  these  provisions  ? 

The  answer  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  "United  States" 
in  the  Constitutional  clause  quoted.  That  term,  territorially, 
has  two  meanings.  To-day  we  give  it  commonly  the  larger 
sense  in  which  it  signifies  all  the  land  under  the  government 


1  It  was  the  first,  or  provisional,  type  of  territorial  government,  used  else- 
where only  while  a  territory  was  barren  of  people. 

2  See  note  to  c  below. 

8  When  Tennessee  was  admitted  as  a  State,  the  rest  of  the  national  domain 
southwest  of  the  Ohio  had  been  organized  as  the  Territory  of  Mississippi. 

4  The  New  England  Federalists,  in  1811,  resisted  the  admission  of  Louisi- 
ana furiously,  because  it  seemed  to  confirm  their  fear  of  permanent  transfer 
of  political  power  to  the  South.  Josiah  Quincy,  their  leader  in  Congress, 
affirmed :  "  I  am  compelled  to  declare  it  as  my  deliberate  opinion  that,  if  this 
bill  passes,  the  bonds  of  this  union  are,  virtually,  dissolved ;  that  the  States 
which  compose  it  are  free  from  their  moral  obligations,  and  that,  as  it  will 
be  the  right  of  all,  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some,  to  prepare,  definitely ,  for  a 
separation:  amicably •,  if they  can ;  violently,  if  they  must.  ..." 


THE   LOUISIANA  PURCHASE  413 

of  the  American  nation,  —  States,  Territories,  and  unorganized 
Domain.  But  the  Constitution,  certainly  in  some  places,  and 
probably  in  all,  uses  the  term  to  signify  only  the  territory 
within  the  States.  Territory,  not  within  a  State,  was  not 
referred  to  as  part  of  the  United  States,  but  as  "  belonging  to 
the  United  States"  (Art.  IV).  In  this  sense,  New  Orleans 
was  not,  in  1803-1810,  a  port  of  the  United  States.1 

For  such  "territory"  Congress  is  authorized  to  make  "all  needful 
rules  and  regulations."  Had  it  the  right,  then,  to  limit  jury  trial  for  the 
inhabitants  of  Louisiana  in  1804  ?  The  prevailing  opinion  seems  to  be 
that  it  has  this  power  over  Territories,  —  though  the  Supreme  Court 
decisions  are  conflicting,  and  have  usually  been  established  on  either  side 
by  a  bare  majority  of  the  Court.  Congress  cannot,  in  legislating  for 
Territories,  violate  any  of  the  express  prohibitions  upon  its  own  power. 
For  instance,  it  cannot  establish  a  particular  church  in  a  Territory,  be- 
cause the  prohibition  in  the  first  amendment  is  a  limitation  upon  the 
power  of  Congress  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  But  those  rights  and  privi- 
leges which  are  secured  in  the  bill  of  rights  to  "citizens"  apply,  it  is 
quite  possible  to  hold,  only  to  citizens  residing  in  some  State  ;  and  in 
that  case  Congress  is  not  bound  to  extend  them  to  inhabitants  of  "  Terri- 
tories "  unless  it  sees  fit.2 

Exercise.  —  For  consideration  :  (1)  Can  Congress  constitutionally 
continue  indefinitely  to  govern  Hawaii  as  a  Territory,  without  admitting 

1  Almost  identical  questions  have  arisen  since,  in  connection  with  the 
acquisition  of  Florida  and  the  Philippines.  In  the  Florida  case,  the  Supreme 
Court  held  that  the  ports  of  that  newly  acquired  territory  were  not  ports  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  did  not 
apply  there  unless  expressly  extended  by  act  of  Congress.  In  the  other  case, 
the  Court  upheld  a  tariff  between  the  ' '  insular  possessions ' '  and  the  rest  of 
the  "United  States"  (§  439). 

2  Gouverneur  Morris,  appealed  to  by  his  Federalist  friends  as  to  the  bearing 
of  the  Constitution  upon  the  power  of  Congress  to  acquire  and  govern 
Louisiana,  replied  frankly  that  he  had  no  intention,  in  the  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention, of  limiting  our  power  to  acquire  territory.  "  I  knew  then,  as  well  as 
I  know  now,  that  all  North  America  must  at  length  be  annexed  to  us"  (!) 
But,  he  adds,  "  I  always  thought,  when  we  should  acquire  Canada  (?)  and 
Louisiana,  it  would  be  proper  to  govern  them  as  provinces,  and  allow  them  no 
vote  in  our  councils.  In  wording  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  Article,  I  went 
as  far  as  circumstances  would  permit  to  establish  the  exclusion."  [To  make 
possible  such  exclusion,  he  meant,  probably.]    Writings,  III,  185,  192. 


414  THE   LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 

her  as  a  State  ?  (2)  Could  Hawaii  be  deprived  by  Congress  of  all  share 
in  her  own  government,  even  after  having  been  permitted  Such  a  share 
for  a  while  ?  '*    ••.'., 

[For  discussion  with  books  open.'] 

261.  Boundaries:  West  Florida  and  Texas.  —  France  sold  us 
Louisiana  (1)  "  with  the  same  extent  it  now  has  in  the  hands 
of  Spain,"  (2)  that  it  had  when  France  possessed  it,  and  (3)  such 
as  it  should  be  according  to  subsequent  treaties  between  Spain 
and  other  powers.  These  three  descriptions  were  absurd.  It 
is  impossible  to  make  the  middle  definition  agree  with  the  two 
others.  Plainly  the  first  definition  was  the  important  one, 
because  that  was  the  Louisiana  which  France  was  buying,  and 
the  only  Louisiana  she  could  sell. 

Under^  France,  before  1763,  Louisiana  had  included  a  strip_of  Gulf 
coast  east  of  the  river  mouth/  But  when  France  ceded  Louisiana  to 
Spain  (1763),  England  had  alfbady  secured  that  strip  and  was  governing 
it  as  "  West  Florida'1''  (from  the  Iberville,  or  eastern  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi,  to  the  Appalachicola).1  Louisiana  then  comprised  (1)  the 
vast  valley  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  (2)  the  island  of  New  Orleans, 
bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Iberville.  In  1783,  Spain  recovered  both 
Louisiana  (from  France)  and  West  Florida  (from  England) .  But  she  did 
not  reunite  them.  She  kept  the  two  provinces  under  these  names  and 
tinder  separate  governments  ;  and  in  1800  she  ceded  back  to  France  only 
the  one  she  then  called  Louisiana.  France  could  not  sell  us  Louisiana 
"with  the  extent  it  had  when  France  possessed  it ' '  formerly,  because 
she  had  not  bought  it  back  in  that  extent. 

But  out  of  this  ambiguity  arose  one  of  the  most  discred- 
itable episodes  in  our  history.  Our  negotiators  had  been  in- 
structed to  get  West  Florida  if  possible ;  and  now,  taking  ad- 
vantage of  the  vague  wording  of  the  treaty,  they  set  up  the 
doctrine  that  they  had  done  so  under  the  name  of  Louisiana. 
Livingstone  urged  the  government  to  use  "the  favorable 
moment"  to  take  possession,  "even  though  a  little  force  should 
be  necessary."  Jefferson  seems  to  have  approved  the  idea. 
John  Randolph,  the  spokesman  for  the  administration  in  Con- 

1  The  treaty  of  1763  between  Spain  and  England  had  made  this  boundary 
absolutely  definite. 


BOUNDARY  QUESTIONS 


415 


French  Louisiana  and  Spanish  Florida,  1756. 

(With  dividing  line  at  the  Perdido.) 


English  West  Flordda,  1763-1783. 
(From  the  Mississippi  to  the  Appalachicola.) 


Spanish  and  American  West  Florida,  1783-1819. 

(The  figures  show  date  of  acquisition  by  the  United  States.) 


416  THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 

gress,  declared  we  had  bought  the  mouth  of  "  the  Mobile  with 
its  widely  extended  branches ;  and  there  is  not  now  a  single 
stream  of  note  rising  within  the  United  States  and  falling 
into  the  Gulf  .  .  .  which  is  not  entirely  our  own,  the  Appa- 
lachicola  excepted." 

But  when  Napoleon  sent  Laussat  to  America  in  1803.  to 
take  formal  possession  of  Louisiana  from  Spain,  in  order  to 
transfer  it  to  the  United  States,  that  officer  was  specifically 
instructed  that  the  eastern  boundary  was  the  Mississippi  and 
the  Iberville  (the  eastern  boundary  of  the  island  of  New  Or- 
leans). He  so  told  Jefferson,  and  we  received  the  transfer 
with  this  understanding,  and  without  protest.  None  the  less, 
a  few  weeks  later,  Congress  created  West  Florida  a  revenue 
district  and  annexed  it  to  the  Territory  of  Mississippi.  This 
"  Mobile  Act "  was  never  put  in  force.  Spain's  protest  was 
so  unanswerable  that  Jefferson  was  driven  into  discreditable 
evasions  in  trying  to  explain  his  position. 

Thus  the  matter  slumbered  six  years.  In  1808  Napoleon 
seized  Spain,  and  soon  the  Spanish  colonies  in  America,  one 
by  one,  became  independent  states.1  In  West  Florida  this 
movement  was  managed  by  Americans  who  had  migrated  across 
the  Iberville  and  formed  settlements  between  that  river  and 
the  Perdido.  In  July,  1810,  they  demanded  from  the  Span- 
ish governor  a  remodeling  of  the  government.  For  a  while  they 
acted  in  harmony  with  him ;  but  soon  they  issued  a  declaration 
of  independence,  and  applied  to  the  United  States  for  annexa- 
tion. October  27,  President  Madison  ordered  the  American 
governor  at  New  Orleans  to  take  military  possession  as  far  as 
to  the  Perdido.  This  district  was  then  added  to  the  Territory 
of  New  Orleans.  \^ 

Madison  tried  to  justify  this  robbery  of  a  friendly  power  by  a  pretended 
fear  that  England  might  seize  the  territory  if  we  did  not  (a  convenient 
pretext  used  by  our  government  more  than  once  since  to  cover  land  grabs) ; 
but,  unhappily,  recent  research  proves  beyond  dispute  that  the  whole  ris- 

i  Modern  History,  §§  367,  393  note. 


CLAIMS  TO  OREGON  417 

ing  had  been  inspired  from  New  Orleans  in  accordance  with  instructions 
from  Washington  (Amer.  Hist.  Association  Reports  for  1911) .  In  order- 
ing military  annexation,  Madison  had  proclaimed  that  the  ownership  of 
the  district  would  "not  cease  to  be  a  subject  for  fair  and  friendly  nego- 
tiation with  Spain";  but,  in  1812,  it  was  incorporated  finally  into  the 
Union  as  part  of  the  new  State  of  Louisiana.  The  opening  of  the  War 
of  1812  with  England  was  made  the  occasion  for  seizing  from  Spain  the 
rest  of  West  Florida,  which  was  then  annexed  to  the  Territory  of  Missis- 
sippi. 

As  settlement  poured  into  the  Mississippi  Territory,  West  Florida 
certainly  became  worth  far  more  to  us  than  it  was  to  Spain.  It  lay,  a 
narrow  strip,  between  us  and  our  natural  coast  line ;  it  held  the  mouths 
of  our  rivers  and  the  harbors  of  our  commerce ;  while  to  Spain  it  meant 
nothing  except  the  chance  to  limit  our  power.  If  the  two  countries  had 
been  individuals,  Spain  would  have  been  morally  bound  to  sell  at  a  fair 
price  ;  but  any  court  would  have  defended  her  title  if,  immorally,  she 
insisted  upon  annoying  her  neighbor  by  keeping  possession.  Between 
two  nations,  as  matters  go,  it  was  inevitable  that  we  should  get  the  dis- 
trict, —  if  not  by  fair  bargaining,  then  by  open  force.  The  unfortunate 
thing  is  that  the  actual  procedure  was  such  a  needless  and  inextricable 
mixture  of  violence  and  deceit.  Says  Henry  Adams,  "  History  cannot 
tell  by  what  single  title  the  United  States  holds  West  Florida.1' l 

The  boundary  between  Louisiana  and  Mexico  had  never  been  defined. 
Napoleon's  instructions  to  Laussat  placed  the  dividing  line  at  the  Rio 
Grande.  If  that  was  correct,  we  had  bought  Texas.  But  Spain  protested 
that  the  proper  boundary  was  the  Sabine.  The  question  was  complicated; 
we  cared  little  about  it  at  the  time  ;  the  territory  was  a  wilderness,  with- 
out White  inhabitants  except  at  a  few  Spanish  missions  ;  and  in  1819  we 
surrendered  all  claim  to  Texas  as  part  of  the  price  we  paid  for  East 
Florida,  which  we  were  then  buying  from  Spain. 

262.  Explorations:  Claims  to  Oregon.  —  Jefferson  had  long 
manifested  a  scientific  interest  in  "  delineating  the  arteries  of 
the  continent."  In  1783  he  had  urged  George  Rogers  Clark 
to  explore  the  West  to  the  Pacific ;  and  three  years  later, 
while  in  France,  he  had  persuaded  Ledyard,  an  American  trav- 

1  For  a  hundred  years  all  government  maps  showed  the  disputed  district 
as  included  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  Honesty  and  historical  accuracy  are 
both  advanced  by  the  abandonment  of  that  misrepresentation  since  1903. 


418  TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION  AFTER  1803 

eler,  to  attempt  to  reach  the  Pacific  coast  of  America  by  way 
of  Siberia  and  the  ocean.  There  must  be  a  great  river,  Jeffer- 
son argued,  flowing  from  the  western  mountains  into  the  Pacific, 
rising  near  the  head  waters  of  the  Missouri.  The  explorer 
could  ascend  this  stream  and  descend  the  Missouri  to  St.  Louis. 

Ledyard  was  turned  back  by  the  jealous  Russian  officials. 
But  in  1792  Captain  Gray  of  Boston,  in  his  ship  Columbia, 
discovered  the  mouth  of  the  prophesied  river,  and  named  it 
for  his  vessel.  This  was  our  first  basis  for  future  claim  to  the 
Oregon  country.  As  soon  as  Jefferson  became  President,  he 
secured  from  Congress  an  appropriation  for  an  exploring  ex- 
pedition to  that  country,  to  be  led  by  Merriwether  Lewis 
(Jefferson's  private  secretary)  and  Captain  William  Clark  (a 
brother  of  George  Rogers  Clark).  Before  the  expedition  was 
ready,  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  made  much  of  the  territory 
to  be  explored  our  own,  and  gave  us  possessions  contiguous  to 
the  unoccupied  and  almost  unclaimed  Oregon  district. 

Lewis  and  Clark  set  out  from  St.  Louis  with  thirty-five  men, 
in  the  spring  of  1804.  Sixteen  hundred  miles  up  the  Missouri, 
near  the  modern  Bismarck,  they  wintered  among  the  Mandan 
Indians.  The  next  spring,  guided  by  the  "Bird  Woman" 
with  her  papoose  on  her  back,  they  continued  up  the  river  to 
the  watershed,  and  followed  streams  down  the  western  slope 
until  they  found  a  mighty  river.  When  they  reached  its 
mouth  in  November,  four  thousand  miles  from  St.  Louis,  this 
river  proved  to  be  Captain  Gray's  Columbia.  This  exploration 
was  the  second  basis  for  American  claim  to  Oregon ;  and  the 
scientific  observations,  maps,  and  journals  of  the  expedition 
revealed  a  vast  region  never  before  known  to  White  men. 

In  1811  Astoria  was  founded  on  the  south  bank  of  the 
Columbia,  by  John  Jacob  Astor,  as  a  station  for  the  fur  trade ; 
this  occupation  by  American  citizens  made  a  third  basis  for 
our  claim  to  the  country.1 

1  When  we  sought  to  establish  our  claim,  a  few  years  later  (§  276) ,  our  gov- 
ernment tried  to  strengthen  its  case  by  holding  that  Oregon  was  part  of  the 


* 


WESTERN  SETTLEMENT 


419 


In  1805  Jefferson  again  made  a  part  of  the  small  army  useful  in  the 
interests  of  science  and  of  peaceful  expansion.  Lieutenant  Zebulon  Pike, 
with  a  small  company,  traced  the  Mississippi  from  St.  Louis  practically 
to  its  source.  Afterward  he  explored  the  Arkansas  and  Red  rivers ;  and, 
in  tracing  the  upper  waters  of  these  streams,  he  discovered  the  mountain 
now  known  as  Pike's  Peak. 

263.  Western  Settlement  from  1800  to  1810  continued 
steadily,  but  without  marked  increase,  under  conditions  simi- 
lar to  those  of  the  Revolutionary  period  —  except  that  Indian 


Cincinnati  in  1810. 
(From  Howe's  Historical  Collections  of  Ohio.) 

peril  had  greatly  lessened.  Settlement  came  in  successive 
waves.  Backwoodsmen  opened  small  clearings,  which,  after  a 
few  years,  were  bought  out  and  enlarged  by  pioneer  farmers, 
who,  in  turn,  soon  followed  the  backwoods  hunters  farther 
west,  selling  out  these  first  homes  to  a  more  permanent  set  of 
farmers  with  more  capital. 

The  "backwoodsmen"  were  usually  "squatters."     The  "farmers" 
secured  title  from  the  Federal  government.     After  1800,  land  could  be 


Louisiana  Purchase.  The  western  boundary  of  Louisiana  was  vague  ;  but  on 
no  possible  ground  could  Louisiana  be  argued  to  have  ever  extended  beyond 
the  Rocky  Mountains.  But  only  recently  have  our  government  maps  aban- 
doned the  unjustifiable  pretense. 


420  JEFFERSONIAN  REPUBLICANISM 

bought  in  160-acre  lots  at  two  dollars  an  acre,  with  payment  down  of 
only  one  fourth  the  price,  —  the  rest  to  be  paid  over  a  period  of  four 
years,  "out  of  the  profits  of  the  crops."  In  the  ten  years  before  1800, 
less  than  a  million  acres  of  public  land  had  been  sold  to  settlers  by  the 
government ;  but,  in  the  next  twenty  years,  sales  averaged  a  million  acres 
a  year,  and  the  lines  of  would-be  purchasers  before  western  land  offices 
suggested  the  phrase,  "  doing  a  land-office  business." 

Between  1800  and  1810,  Ohio  grew  ninefold,  —  from  45,000  to  400,000  ; 
while  24,000  people  pressed  on  into  the  southern  districts  of  Indiana,  and 
half  that  many  penetrated  even  into  southern  Illinois.  Even  the  older 
communities  south  of  the  Ohio,  —  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  —  doubled 
their  numbers,  rising  to  two  thirds  of  a  million.  In  1811,  1200  flat- 
boats  passed  the  rapids  of  the  Ohio  with  cargoes  of  bacon,  beef,  and  flour, 
bound  down  river  ;  and  the  West  had  found  a  way  to  market  large  parts 
of  its  corn  and  wheat  "on  the  hoof."  Each  fall,  immense  droves  of 
cattle  and  hogs  were  driven  over  the  wagon  roads  to  the  eastern  cities, 
finding  subsistence  as  they  moved  —  sometimes  as  many  as  4000  hogs  in 
one  drove. 

264.  The  Promise  of  the  Steamboat.  —  With  the  acquisitions 
of  the  vast  western  territory  came  the  invention  which  was  to 
make  it  accessible.  This  was  the  application  of  steam  power 
to  locomotion  by  water.  (By  land,  the  application  was  to 
come  considerably  later,  §  290.)  The  Watts  stationary  steam 
engine  had  been  in  use  in  England  for  several  years,  and  in 
1800  there  were  four  or  five  such  engines  in  America.  As 
early  as  1789,  John  Fitch,  a  poor  man  without  education  but 
with  wonderful  inventive  genius,  built  a  ferryboat  with  pad- 
dles driven  by  an  engine  of  his  own  construction,  and  ran 
it  up  as  well  as  down  the  river  at  Philadelphia  for  some 
months.  In  spite  of  this  remarkable  success,  Fitch  could  not 
raise  money  to  improve  or  continue  his  experiment ;  and  after 
trying  his  fortune  vainly  in  the  West,  where  such  motive 
power  was  so  much  needed,  he  put  an  end  to  his  life,  in  dis- 
gust and  despair,  in  a  Kentucky  tavern  (1798).  During  these 
same  years,  Philadelphia  had  another  neglected  genius,  Oliver 
Evans,  who  likewise  built  a  steam  engine  suited  for  locomotion ; 
but  again  the  inventor  failed  to  secure  money  to  finance  the 
undertaking  to  practical  success. 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  421 

More  fortunate  was  Robert  Fulton,  who  secured  money 
backing  from  Chancellor  Livingstone  of  New  York.1  Amid 
popular  indifference  and  jeers,  Fulton,  in  1807,  launched  the 
Clermont,  furnished  with  an  engine  imported  from  England, 
and  made  a  trial  trip  from  New  York  to  Albany  (150  miles)  in 
32  hours.  The  next  year  a  regular  line  of  steamboats  plied 
between  the  two  cities;  and  men  were  beginning  to  plan  for 
them  elsewhere.  It  was  seen  that  their  use  on  western  waters 
would  revolutionize  settlement  and  freight  carriage;  but  then 
came  a  brief  interruption  to  all  this  progress,  in  the  War  of 
1812  (§  266  ft). 

265.  Internal  Improvements.  — Jefferson  strove  valiantly  not 
to  "  make  waste  paper  of  the  Constitution  by  construction " ; 
but  he  came,  in  his  second  administration, 'to  fa vor  amendments 
such  as  would  have  greatly  enlarged  the  sphere  of  government 
action ;  and,  lacking  the  amendments,  he  reluctantly  yielded 
to  pressure  and  to  necessity,  and  acted  sometimes  under  the 
doctrine  of  implied  powers  which  he  had  once  denounced. 

The  government  improved  a  harbor  by  raising  a  sunken  gunboat 
which  imperiled  the  entrance  ;  and  this  precedent  led  to  the  removal 
of  further  obstructions.  The  building  of  dry-docks,  to  protect  the  unused 
national  navy,  was  extended  to  the  construction  of  public  wharves.  And, 
though  Jefferson  had  looked  with  critical  eye  upon  the  construction  of  a 
first  Federal  lighthouse, 2  in  Washington's  time,  he  now  quietly  approved 
large  appropriations  for  the  exceedingly  useful  coast  survey,  inaugurated 
in  1806.  During  the  last  year  of  his  administration,  $100,000  were  ex- 
pended for  such  purposes. 

The  excuse  for  Federal  expenditure  on  harbor  improvement 
was  that  it  was  paid  for  out  of  the  tonnage  tax  collected  from 
vessels  that  used  the  harbor.  But,  what  harbors  were  to  east- 
ern communities,  roads  would  be  to  the  people  of  the  west. 
Why  should  not  the  nation  build  such  roads  and  pay  for  them 


1  In  1803  Fulton  had  tried  to  interest  Napoleon,  but  had  been  repulsed  as 
a  faker. 

2  "  The  utility  of  the  thing  has  sanctioned  the  infraction,"  said  Jefferson, 
later. 


422  JEFFERSONIAN  REPUBLICANISM 

out  of  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  —  to  which  they  would  give 
value  ?  This  was  the  guise  under  which  the  question  of 
"  internal  improvements  w  first  appeared. 

When  Ohio  was  admitted  as  a  State  (1802),  on  the  suggestion- 
of  Gallatin,  Congress  promised  that  one  twentieth  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  remaining  national  domain  within  her  bounds  should 
be  used,  under  national  direction,  in  building  roads  from  navi- 
gable streams  east  of  the  mountains  to  the  Ohio  river,  and 
afterward  on  roads  within  the  State.1  But  lands  sold  slowly, 
and  in  1806  Congress  agreed  to  advance  $30,000  (to  be  re- 
paid out  of  the  future  land  sales);  and  a  survey  was  begun  for 
"  The  National  Road,"  or  Cumberland  Road,  from  Fort  Cum- 
berland in  Maryland  (on  the  Potomac)  to  Wheeling  in  western 
Virginia  (on  the  upper  Ohio). 

In  his  second  inaugural  Jefferson  called  attention  to  the  rapid 
decrease  of  the  debt,  and  to  the  fact  that  only  a  few  millions  more 
could  be  taken  up  in  the  next  few  years  (the  rest  not  being  due).  He 
then  suggested  that,  instead  of  decreasing  the  revenue  tariffs  "on 
luxuries,"  the  surplus  revenue,  by  a  proper  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, might  be  re-divided  among  the  States  in  the  form  of  national  appli- 
cation to  "rivers,  canals,  roads,  arts,  manufactures,  education,  and  other 
great  objects." 

Soon  after,  he  wrote  to  Gallatin  that  he  was  impatient  "  to  begin  upon 
canals,  roads,  colleges,  etc."  And,  in  great  detail,  and  with  much  elo- 
quence, the  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1806,  urged  (with  sugges- 
tion of  a  necessary  amendment)  a  national  university  and  a  system  of 
internal  improvements  to  cement  the  union  between  the  States.  During 
the  following  year,  Congress,  without  reference  to  the  need  of  an  amend- 
ment, asked  the  executive  to  submit  a  plan  for  roads  and  canals ;  and  this 
led  to  Gallatin's  famous  report  of  1808.  That  paper  sketched  a  compre- 
hensive system  of  communication  at  national  expense,  the  construction 
to  be  spread  over"  a  period  of  ten  years,  with  an  estimate  of  $2,000,000  a 
year  :   (1)  canals  through  Cape  Cod,  New  Jersey,  and  other  projections 

1  The  strict  constructionists  excused  the  measure  as  a  bargain  between  the 
United  States  and  Ohio.  Ohio,  said  Gallatin,  could  hardly  be  expected  to 
acquiesce  in  the  nation's  retaining  title  to  the  vast  public  domain  within  the 
State  without  some  such  sop.  The  consent  of  each  State  through  which  the 
road  was  to  pass,  too,  was  sought  and  obtained. 


THE  WAR  OF   1812  423 

were  to  create  a  shorter  and  safer  inside  coast  route ;  (2)  a  turnpike  was 
to  run  from  Maine  to  Georgia ;  and  (3)  turnpikes  were  to  join  four  east- 
ern rivers  with  streams  beyond  the  mountains.  But  at  this  moment 
national  revenue  fell  away,  because  of  the  embargo  (§  266),  and  for  some 
years  all  such  projects  were  lost  in  war  clouds. 

Meantime,  especially  after  1809,  almost  alone  of  the  States, 
Pennsylvania  had  been  acting  for  herself.  In  the  next  six 
years,  that  State  spent  $2,000,000  (and  private  corporations 
with  State  encouragement  spent  twice  as  much  more)  in  creat- 
ing a  good  system  of  turnpikes  (a  total  of  1000  miles,  with 
good  bridges)  joining  the  various  parts  of  the  commonwealth 
and  forming  good  connection  between  the  eastern  waters  and 
Pittsburg  on  the  Ohio. 

For  Further  Reading  on  Divisions  I  and  II.  —  The  best  compact  sur- 
vey is  in  Channing's  Jeffersonian  System,  chs.  i,  ii,  v-xi.  The  great  au- 
thority, whom  even  Professor  Channing  follows  in  the  main,  is  Henry 
Adams'  History  of  the  United  States,  I-IV. 

III.    WAR    WITH   ENGLAND 

266.  The  Situation:  Commercial  War,  1806-1812. — After  brief 
truce,  the  European  war  began  again  in  1803,  and  the  commer- 
cial clauses  of  the  Jay  treaty  expired  soon  after.  Napoleon 
was  soon  master  of  the  continent,  with  all  the  coast  line  from 
Italy  to  Denmark ;  while  his  sole  antagonist,  England,  ruled 
supreme  on  the  sea.1  The  only  neutral  power  with  any  ship- 
ping interests  was  the  United  States.  That  shipping  fattened 
on  its  monopoly ;  but  each  of  the  mighty  combatants  strove  to 
force  it  into  an  ally,  and  to  prevent  it  aiding  his  foe.  English 
"  Order  in  Council n  followed  French  "  Decree  " ;  and  whatever 
American  shipping  the  one  did  not  declare  subject  to  capture, 
the  other  did;  while  our  own  government  lacked  decision  to 
take  sides,  or  power  to  defend  its  citizens. 

The  story  is  not  a  pleasant  one.  It  is  a  tale  of  outrageous 
robbery  by  both  European  powers,  and  of  American  vacillation 

i  Cf.  Modern  History,  §§  364-368,  and  especially  372. 


424  THE  WAR  OF  1812 

and  disgrace.  Jefferson  and  Madison,  great  in  peace,  were  not 
suited  for  emergencies  of  this  kind.  Well-meaning,  gentle, 
trustful,  not  particularly  decisive,  they  were  buffeted  pitifully 
back  and  forth  between  the  arrogance  and  indifference  of  Eng- 
lish Pitt  and  Canning,  and  the  duplicity  and  insolent  greed  of 
French  Napoleon  and  Talleyrand.  If  war  is  ever  justifiable 
for  any  provocation  short  of  armed  invasion,  we  had  abundant 
cause  to  fight  both  robbers  or  either,  at  any  time  between  1806 
and  1810.  Our  government  shilly-shallied,  in  impotent  inde- 
cision, until  the  energetic  part  of  the  nation  rose  wrathfully  to 
demand  that  we  fight  some  one  at  once  to  win  back  self-respect. 
Then  we  chose  the  wrong  time  and,  apparently,  the  wrong  foe.1 
Unfortunately,  too,  justifiable  or  not,  our  choice  of  a  foe  arrayed 
us  on  the  side  of  the  European  despot  against  the  only  hope 
for  European  freedom.2  To  complicate  the  picture  further,  that 
section  of  the  country  immediately  interested  —  the  section 
whose  ships  were  being  confiscated  and  sailors  impressed  — 
did  not  want  war  at  any  time,  —  certainly  not  with  England, 
—  and  talked  freely  of  preferring  secession  from  the  Union.3 

1  Says  Professor  A.  B.  Hart  {Foundations  of  American  Foreign  Policy,  27)  : 
"  The  United  States  waited  till  the  European  system  .  .  .  was  on  the  point  of 
falling  to  pieces  of  its  own  weight,  and  then  made  war  on  the  power  which, 
on  the  whole,  had  done  us  the  least  harm."  To  the  same  effect,  and  with 
more  carefully  chosen  words,  Professor  Channing  says  (Jeffersonian  System, 
200) :  "  One  may  say  that  both  parties  were  justified  in  seeking  to  distress 
their  enemy  by  cutting  off  neutral  trade  ...  as  a  war  measure.  .  .  .  The 
intention  of  the  English  government  seems  to  have  been  to  treat  the  neutral 
fairly,  to  give  him  ample  warning,  and  to  mitigate  his  losses  by  permitting 
him  to  seek  another  destination  for  his  cargo.  The  French  administration 
of  the  decrees  was  peculiarly  harsh  and  unjust.  ...  In  short  the  French 
seem  to  have  acted  with  the  least  consideration  for  the  rights  of  neutrals  ;  but 
the  English  confiscated  so  many  more  neutral  vessels,  owing  to  the  activity 
and  strength  of  their  cruisers  and  privateers,  that  the  greater  hostility  was 
aroused  against  the  British." 

2  The  rise  of  Napoleon  had  reversed  the  position  of  England  and  France,  as 
compared  with  that  of  1793  (§§  225,  230). 

3  In  1790,  before  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution  began,  550 English  mer- 
chant ships  entered  American  harbors.  In  1799,  when  the  first  series  of  wars 
closed,  the  number  had  sunk  to  100.  Meantime,  New  England  shipping  had 
increased  fivefold.    During  the  second  series  of  wars,  —  until  we  ourselves 


PRELIMINARIES  425 

Jefferson's  second  administration  spent  its  chief  energy  in 
trying  to  maintain  a  policy  of  commercial  non-intercourse  with 
the  warring  powers,  in  order  to  compel  them  to  respect  our 
neutral  rights.  In  1807,  to  make  the  policy  effective,  Congress 
decreed  an  embargo  upon  all  American  shipping  bound  for 
foreign  ports  —  and  no  time  limit  was  specified  in  the  laiv.  This 
was  not  a  measure  preparatory  to  ivar :  it  was  war  in  commercial 
form. 

The  embargo  did  cause  great  distress  among  workingmen 
and  commercial  classes  in  England,  but  these  classes  then 
had  no  voice  in  the  English  government.  The  landed  aristoc- 
racy, which  did  control  the  government,  in  death  grapple  with 
Napoleon,  hardened  its  heart  to  the  suffering  of  other  English- 
men as  an  inevitable  incident  of  the  great  war,  and  stubbornly 
refused  to  make  concessions  to  America.  Meanwhile,  the  em- 
bargo caused  hardly  less  distress  at  home  ;  and  the  outcry  from 
the  sailors  out  of  work,  shippers  whose  vessels  lay  idle,  and 
farmers  whose  produce  rotted  unsold,  could  not  long  be  ignored 
by  Congress.  In  New  England  juries  refused  to  convict  for 
violation  of  the  embargo  on  the  plainest  evidence,  and  public 
opinion  made  it  impossible  to  enforce  the  law.  It  was  repealed, 
as  a  failure,  in  the  closing  days  of  Jefferson's  presidency.  Its 
chief  result  had  been  a  revival  of  the  Federalist  party  in  New 
England. 

267.  Decision  for  War.  —  Jefferson  had  wished  his  lieutenant, 
Madison,  to  succeed  him,  and  in  1808  Madison  was  elected  by 
a  vote  of  three  to  one.  Backed  by  the  "  Old  Republicans,  "  he 
tried  still  to  preserve  peace  by  slight  modifications  of  Jeffer- 


becarae  engaged,  —  American  shipping  continued  to  absorb  the  former  English 
carrying  trade  with  the  world.  Between  1803  and  1812,  England  seized  a 
thousand  American  merchantmen,  —  many  of  them  very  properly,  for  viola- 
tions of  recognized  principles  of  international  law,  and  France  captured  more 
than  half  that  number,  — the  greater  part  treacherously,  after  inviting  them 
into  continental  harbors  by  special  proclamation.  But  New  England  was 
willing  to  submit  to  all  this,  and  to  the  impressment  of  her  seamen,  rather 
than  lose  her  golden  harvest  of  the  seas. 


426  THE  WAR   OF    1812 

son's  policy  ;  but  a  younger,  more  aggressive  wing  of  the  party 
called  loudly  for  war.  These  "  War  Hawks,"  or  Young  Repub- 
licans, led  by  Henry  Clay  of  Kentucky  and  John  C.  Calhoun  of 
South  Carolina,  finally  brought  Madison  to  their  side.1  The 
choice  of  England  as  a  foe,  rather  than  France,  was  easily 
reached.  Napoleon  promised  to  repeal  his  decrees  (though  he 
did  not,  and  did  not  intend  to) ;  and  since  England  refused  to 
repeal  her  "  orders  "  until  France  should  actually  perforin  the 
promise,  the  United  States  declared  war  (June,  1812). 

For  three  generations  Americans  held  a  tradition  that  we  fought  the 
War  of  1812  in  defense  of  "  sailors'  rights  "  against  impressment.  This 
is  not  a  fair  statement.  Even  after  war  was  determined  upon,  during  the 
last  of  1811  and  the  first  half  of  1812,  neither  the  government  nor  news- 
papers mentioned  impressments  as  a  cause  (even  when  we  were  invent- 
ing false  causes,  —  charging  English  encouragement  of  Indians  on  our 
frontier).  Says  Henry  Adams:  "When  this  grievance  [impressment] 
was  finally  taken  up,  it  was  an  afterthought,  when  the  original  cause 
failed  to  unite  and  arouse  the  people.  If  England  had  yielded  to  our 
commercial  demands,  nothing  would  then  have  been  said  of  impress- 
ments. .  .  .  This  worst  of  American  grievances  took  its  proper  place  as 
a  political  maneuver."  Madison's  special  message  to  Congress  recom- 
mending a  declaration  of  war  named  impressments  first  among  our  prov- 
ocations ;  but  never  before  had  our  government  intimated  to  England 
that  she  must  give  up  this  practice  or  fight.2 


1  It  was  charged  that  Madison  yielded  to  secure  necessary  War  Hawk  sup- 
port for  his  reelection  in  1812.  Dislike  for  the  war  had  strengthened  the 
Federalists,  but  Madison  received  128  votes  (from  South  and  West)  to  89  for 
his  Federalist  rival. 

2  §  231.  For  examples  of  French  impressment  of  Americans,  see  Channing's 
Jeffersonian  System,  187.  The  student  will  do  well  to  read  in  that  volume 
pages  184-188  ;  or,  for  the  full  treatment  of  impressments,  pages  184-194.  The 
Chesapeake-Leopard  affair  may  be  made  a  subject  for  special  report.  Observe 
that  New  England  Federalists  were  willing  even  to  justify  English  search  of 
an  American  war  vessel  for  deserters,  —  which  was  a  very  different  thing 
from  search  of  a  mere  private  merchant  vessel. 

Curiously  enough,  just  before  our  declaration  of  war,  too  close  for  the  fact 
to  become  known  in  America,  England  did  repeal  absolutely  all  her  objection- 


CAMPAIGNS  427 

268.   The  War.1  —  The  War  Hawks  expected  to  end  the  war  in  one 

glorious  campaign  of  conquest.  Said  Clay  in  Congress,  "  I  am  not  for 
stopping  at  Quebec,  but  I  would  take  the  whole  continent."  But  the 
country,  as  a  whole,  showed  amazing  indifference  ;  and  New  England,  in 
particular,  persisted  in  looking  upon  the  struggle  as  "Mr.  Madison's 
war."  A  rich  nation  of  eight  million  people  could  have  put  300,000  men 
into  the  field  (at  the  ratio  of  Northern  effort  in  1865)  ;  but  at  no  time  (not 
even  when  our  territory  was  invaded)  did  we  have  one  tenth  that  force  for 
effective  service,  and,  most  of  the  time,  the  numbers  were  a  half  smaller 
still,  — spite  of  bounties  and  other  lavish  inducements  offered  by  the  gov- 
ernment. 

Even  more  discouraging  were  the  finances.  The  Government  imposed 
an  excise  and.  stamp  duty  (hateful  to  Republican  principles)  and  direct 
taxes ;  but  the  States  were  delinquent  in  payment.  When  the  Govern- 
ment tried  to  borrow,  its  bonds  had  to  be  sold  at  ruinous  discount.  Dur- 
ing the  three  years,  the  debt  mounted  frightfully  ;  and,  toward  the  close, 
the  treasury  was  practically  bankrupt.  In  a  few  weeks  more,  this  con- 
dition alone,  unless  changed,  would  have  compelled  the  Government  to 
sue  for  peace. 

In  the  first  campaigns,  the  militia  distrusted  its  incapable  officers  and 
behaved  badly  on  several  occasions.  2  In  1814,  just  as  England,  freed 
from  the  pressure  of  European  war,  prepared  to  push  matters  in  America, 
more  efficient  American  officers  came  to  the  front,  and  we  regained  our 
northern  frontier  in  two  or  three  creditable  engagements,  like  the  Battle 
of  the  Thames  (October,  1813)  and  Lundy's  Lane  (July,  1814).  Then, 
in  1815,  after  peace  had  been  signed,  but  before  the  fact  was  known  in 
America,  Andrew  Jackson,  with  four  thousand  western  riflemen  (deadly 
marksmen  all),  lying  behind  cotton  bales   at  New   Orleans,  beat  off  a 


able  orders  against  our  commerce ;  and  a  few  weeks  later  we  removed  a  real 
grievance  England  had  against  ns  by  a  law  to  prevent  employing  fraudulently 
naturalized  foreign  sailors  in  American  vessels.  The  story  is  one  of  blunder 
and  confusion  from  end  to  end.  Even  so,  an  Atlantic  cable  would  have  made 
war  impossible. 

1  An  excellent  statement  of  military  problems  is  given  in  Hinsdale's  How  to 
Study  and  Teach  History,  240-247.  The  diplomatic  victory  of  the  American 
negotiators  in  the  treaty  of  peace  is  a  more  flattering  story,  and  is  well  worth 
a  special  report.  Cf .  especially  Adams'  History  of  the  United  States,  if  acces- 
sible. 

2  For  an  instance,  see  McMaster,  IV,  12-20.  For  a  notable  exception  to  the 
general  run  of  American  reverses,  Perry's  splendidly  earned  victory  on  Lake 
Erie  in  1813  may  be  made  a  subject  for  special  report. 


428  THE  WAR  OF   1812 

stubborn  attack  of  five  thousand  splendid  but  poorly  handled  English 
veterans1  with  a  slaughter  of  two  thousand. 

On  sea,  America  did  win  renown.  True,  no  injury  to  England's 
power  was  inflicted.  England  had  a  thousand  warships,  two  hundred  of 
them  larger  than  any  one  of  our  seventeen  vessels  ;  and,  before  the  end  of 
the  war,  every  American  warship  was  sunk  or  blocked  up  in  harbor. 
But,  meantime,  in  numerous  ship  duels  between  well-matched  antagonists, 
the  Americans  had  amazed  the  world  by  a  series  of  remarkable  victories, 
and,  at  last,  won  even  from  England  the  reluctant  admission  that,  ship  for 
ship  and  gun  for  gun,  we  outsailed  and  outfought  them  on  their  chosen 
element.  England  lost  only  thirteen  ships  ;  but  the  mortification  in  that 
country  was  wholesome,  and  there  was  less  talk,  thereafter,  of  Americans 
as  "degenerate"  Englishmen.  Says  Henry  Adams  of  the  American 
victors:  "Decatur  and  Hull  .  .  .  were  aware  that  the  serious  work  on 
their  hands  had  little  to  do  with  England's  power,  but  much  to  do  with 
her  manners." 

Moreover,  a  really  serious  injury  to  England's  remaining  merchant 
marine  was  inflicted  by  the  multitudes  of  American  privateers  which 
snapped  up  ships  even  in  sight  of  the  English  coast.  In  all,  there  were  over 
eight  hundred  captures  of  this  sort ;  and  shipping  insurance  in  England 
rose  to  double  the  point  ever  reached  before  in  all  her  wars  with  her 
neighbors. 

The  Treaty  of  Ghent  (Dec.  14,  1814),  which  closed  the  war,  restored  the 
old  boundaries  and  left  all  other  questions  unsettled  ;  but  the  return  of 
peace  in  Europe,  in  1814,  had  removed  the  occasions  of  trouble.2 

IV.     NEW   ENGLAND   AND  THE   UNION,    1800-1815 

269.  The  "  Plots  "  of  1803  and  1809.  —  From  1800  to  1815, 
New  England's  attitude  toward  the  Union  was  always  dis- 

1  From  the  English  army  which  had  withstood  Napoleon's  best  soldiers  in 
the  "  Peninsular  campaigns." 

One  disgraceful  episode  of  the  war  calls  for  mention.  In  1813  an  American 
raid  burned  Toronto  (then  York),  the  capital  of  Lower  Canada.  A  British 
force  off  our  eastern  coast  retaliated  by  a  raid  against  our  Capital.  Five 
thousand  troops  marched  triumphantly  through  fifty  miles  of  well-populated 
country,  drove  a  large  body  of  militia  before  them  in  shameful  rout,  and  laid 
the  public  buildings  of  Washington  in  ashes.  A  few  days  later,  an  attack 
upon  Baltimore  was  repulsed  by  the  militia.  This  was  the  occasion  for  the 
poem,  "The  Star-spangled  Banner,  "  by  Francis  Scott  Key,  a  prisoner  at  the 
time  on  a  British  vessel  in  view  of  the  attack. 

2  For  the  exceedingly  important  Indian  warfare  and  results,  see  §  272,  b. 


NEW  ENGLAND  AND  THE  WAR  429 

graceful  and  sometimes  treasonable.  In  1803-1804,  when  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  seemed  to  foreshadow  an  increase  of 
political  weight  to  the  South,  the  Essex  Junto,1  a  group  of  the 
chief  leaders  of  New  England  Federalism,  sought  refuge  in  a 
definite  plot  for  secession.  But  Hamilton,  who  had  been 
counted  on  to  bring  in  New  York,  frowned  on  the  project ; 2 
and  in  New  England  itself,  at  this  moment,  the  leaders  found 
little  popular  sympathy.  Thus  this  "first  Federalist  plot" 
never  got  further  than  closet  conferences  and  private  corre- 
spondence.3 

The  embargo  (§  266)  prepared  the   mass   of  the  population 
for  desperate  measures,  and  the  years  1808-1809  saw  a  popular 


1  So  called  because  most  of  the  group  lived  in  Essex  County,  near  Boston. 

2  He  agreed  that  the  "disease  of  democracy  "  was  serious  enough,  but  he 
did  not  believe  disunion  would  afford  a  remedy. 

3  Pickering  (formerly  Washington's  Secretary  of  War)  wrote,  December  24, 
1803 :  "  Although  the  end  of  our  Revolutionary  labors  and  expectations  is 
disappointment  ...  I  will  not  yet  despair :  I  will  rather  anticipate  a  new 
confederacy  "  ;  and  to  Cabot,  January  29,  1804,  after  expressing  fear  of  Jef- 
ferson (cf.  §  229) :  "  How  long  we  shall  enjoy  even  this  security,  God  only 
knows;  and  must  we  with  folded  hands  wait  the  result,  or  timely  think  of 
other  protection.  .  .  .  The  principles  of  our  Revolution  point  to  the  remedy, 
—  a  separation.  That  this  can  be  accomplished,  and  without  spilling  one  drop 
of  blood,  I  have  little  doubt";  and  March  4,  to  Rufus  King:  "  If  a  sep- 
aration should  be  deemed  proper,  the  five  New  England  States,  New  York, 
and  New  Jersey  would  naturally  be  united.  ...  I  do  not  know  one  reflect- 
ing New  Englander  who  is  not  anxious  for  the  Great  Event  at  which  I  have 
glanced." 

John  Quincy  Adams  broke  with  the  Federalists  soon  after  this  time,  and 
some  years  later  he  declared  in  much  detail  his  knowledge  of  this  plot,  of 
which  he  strongly  disapproved,  adding,  "  The  plan  was  so  far  matured  that 
it  had  been  proposed  to  an  individual  to  allow  himself,  when  the  time  was 
ripe,  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  military  movements."  And  William 
Plummer,  a  New  England  Congressman,  declared  that  he  knew  at  the  time 
of  this  plot  for  a  separate  confederacy:  "  Their  intention,  they  said,  was  to 
establish  their  new  government  under  the  authority  and  protection  of  the 
State  governments;  that,  having  secured  the  election  of  a  Governor  and 
majority  of  a  legislature  in  a  State  in  favor  of  separation,  the  legislature 
would  repeal  the  law  authorizing  the  people  to  elect  Representatives  to  Con- 
gress, and  the  legislature  decline  electing  Senators,  and  gradually  withdraw 
the  State  from  the  Union.  ..." 


430  THE  WAR  OF   1812 

movement  for  nullification.  December  27,  1808,  a  Bath  town 
meeting  called  on  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  "  to  take 
immediate  steps  for  relieving  the  people,  either  by  themselves 
alone  or  in  concert  with  the  other  commercial  States."  The 
meeting  then  appointed  a  "  committee  of  safety  ...  to  corre- 
spond .  .  .  and  give  immediate  alarm,  so  that  a  regular  meet- 
ing may  be  called  whenever  any  infringement  of  their  [Bath's] 
rights  shall  be  committed  by  any  person  or  persons  under  color 
and  pretence  of  authority  derived  from  any  officer  of  the  United 
States."  Other  towns  took  similar  action.  Then  the  action 
spread  to  the  State  governments.  Governor  Trumbull  of  Con- 
necticut, when  called  upon  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  assist 
in  appointing  officers  for  enforcing  the  Embargo  Act,  declined 
to  serve,  declaring  the  law  "  unconstitutional,  .  .  .  interfering 
with  the  State  sovereignties,  and  subversive  to  the  rights  .  .  . 
of  citizens  n ;  and  in  his  address  to  the  Connecticut  legislature 
(February  23,  1809)  he  placed  himself  on  the  precise  ground 
of  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  '99  : 

"  Whenever  our  national  legislature  is  led  to  overleap  the  prescribed 
bounds  of  their  constitutional  powers,  on  the  State  legislatures,  in  great 
emergencies,  devolves  the  arduous  task,  —  it  is  their  right,  it  becomes 
their  duty,  —  to  interpose  their  protecting  shield  between  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  people  and  the  assumed  power  of  the  General  govern- 
ment." 

The  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  acting  on  this  same  principle, 
prescribed  fine  and  imprisonment  for  officers  of  the  Union  who 
should  try  to  enforce  the  law  in  that  State ;  but  open  conflict 
was  avoided  because  the  governor  wisely  vetoed  the  Act.  Then 
the  repeal  of  the  embargo  closed  this  second  period  of  agita- 
tion.1 

""  270.  Treasonable  Attitude,  1812-1815.  —  The  third  distinct 
period  of    New  England    opposition   was   longer    and   more 

1  In  short,  commercialism  was  stronger  than  loyalty ;  and  from  1789  to 
1815  any  suggestion  of  interference  with  commercial  profits  was  as  sure  to 
call  out  prompt  threats  of  disunion  or  nullification  from  New  England,  as 
suggestions  of  interference  with  slavery  did  at  the  South  at  a  later  date. 


DISUNION  MOVEMENTS  431 

serious.  It  ran  through  the  three  years  of  foreign  war.  For 
1812-1813,  a  few  details  must  suffice.  (1)  By  unlawful  and 
treasonable,  but  highly  profitable,  trade,  New  England  merchants 
and  farmers  fed  the  British  army  in  Canada.1  (2)  New  Eng- 
land Federalist  representatives  in  Congress,  with  the  full  ap- 
proval of  their  constituents,  used  every  effort  to  defeat  the  bills 
to  fill  up  the  ranks  of  the  depleted  army.  When  a  bill  was  un- 
der consideration  to  permit  minors  over  eighteen  to  enlist, 
Quincy  of  Massachusetts  exclaimed  : 

' '  It  must  be  never  forgotten  . .  .  that  these  United  States  form  a  polit- 
ical association  of  independent  sovereignties.  .  .  .  Pass  this  bill,  and  if 
the  legislatures  of  the  injured  States  do  not  come  down  on  your  recruiting 
officers  with  the  old  laws  against  kidnapping  and  man  stealing,  they  are 
false  to  themselves  .  .  .  and  their  country." 

(3)  The  militia  refused  to  obey  the  call  of  the  President.  In 
1812  Madison,  as  authorized  by  Congress,  called  on  the  State 
governors  to  order  out  the  militia  to  repel  expected  invasion 
of  their  own  coasts.  The  governor  of  Massachusetts  declared 
that  neither  invasion  nor  insurrection  existed  (Constitution, 
Art.  I,  sec.  8)  ;  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  assured 
him  that  it  belonged  to  him,  rather  than  to  President  and  Con- 
gress, to  decide  whether  the  summons  was  constitutional. 
Then  Vermont  recalled  her  militia  from  service. 

The  closing  year  of  the  war  saw  a  more  definite  movement 
for  disunion,  after  the  successive  defeats  of  Napoleon  seemed 
to  assure  England's  victory  in  Europe.  The  first  step  was  to 
have  town  meetings  petition  the  Massachusetts  General  Court 
to  secure  a  separate  peace  for  that  State.2     The  legislature  re- 

i  Cf .  §  129.  This  illicit  trade  is  pictured  graphically  in  McMaster,  IV,  65-66. 
The  British  general  wrote  to  the  English  war  minister,  "Two  thirds  of  the 
army  in  Canada  are  at  this  moment  eating  beef  provided  by  American  con- 
tractors." 

2  As  early  as  June  29, 1812,  a  Gloucester  meeting  voted :  "  If  a  destruction 
of  our  commerce  and  fisheries  are  the  terms  on  which  a  confederation  of  the 
States  (!)  is  to  be  supported,  the  Union  will  be  to  us  a  thread,  and  the  sooner 
it  is  severed,  the  better.  .  .  .  We  view  the  salvation  of  our  country  as  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  commercial  States,  and  to  them  we  pledge  our  lives,  our 


432  THE  WAR  OF   1812 

ferred  such  addresses  to  a  special  committee,  which  advised  a 
convention  of  New  England  States.  The  legislature,  however, 
deferred  the  matter  until  the  next  General  Court,  which  would 
"  come  from  the  people  still  more  fully  possessed  of  their  views 
and  wishes."  The  election  returned  a  strong  majority  com- 
mitted to  a  New  England  Convention.  That  legislature  then 
issued  its  call  and  appointed  delegates.  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island  joined  the  movement,  and  New  Hampshire  and  Ver- 
mont were  represented  at  the  meeting  in  irregular  fashion,  by 
delegates  chosen  in  county  meetings. 

Extreme  Federalist  leaders  made  no  secret  of  their  hope  that  the  Con- 
vention would  at  once  begin  the  formation  of  a  new  confederacy  of 
northern  States.  Gouverneur  Morris,  now  one  of  the  worst  of  the  group, 
wrote  exultantly  to  a  member  of  Congress:  "I  care  nothing  more  for 
your  actings  and  doings.  Your  decrees  of  conscriptions  and  your  levy  of 
contributions  are  alike  indifferent  to  one  whose  eyes  are  fixed  on  a  star  in 
the  East,  which  he  believes  to  be  the  dayspring  of  freedom  and  glory. 
The  '  traitors  and  madmen  '  assembled  at  Hartford  will,  I  believe,  if  not 
too  tame  and  timid,  be  hailed  hereafter  as  the  patriots  and  sages  of  their 
day."  Pickering,  with  equal  delight,  wrote,  "I  do  not  expect  to  see  a 
single  representative  from  the  Eastern  States  in  the  next  Congress"  ;  and 
he  advised  the  Massachusetts  government  to  seize  the  Federal  custom- 
houses and  revenues  within  her  borders  at  once,  and  prepare  for  her  own 
defense  against  either  England  or  the  United  States.  Another  of  the 
same  treasonable  group  of  leaders,  advising  instant  action,  wrote: 
"  Words  are  exhausted.  We  have  [already]  said  more  than  was  said  by 
all  the  public  bodies  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 


fortunes,  and  everything  we  hold  dear  in  time  [not  against  England ;  then 
against  Mr.  Madison  ?] ;  and  to  our  State  government  we  look  immediately  in 
a  confident  reliance  on  the  God  of  Armies."  In  January,  1813,  an  Essex 
county  address  to  the  Massachusetts  legislature  ran:  "  We  remember  the  re- 
sistance of  our  fathers  to  oppressions  which  dwindle  into  insignificance  com- 
pared to  those  we  are  called  on  to  endure  [at  the  hands  of  the  United  States 
government,  this  means]  .  .  .  and  we  pledge  to  you  .  .  .  our  lives  and 
property  in  support  of  whatever  measure  the  dignities  and  liberties  of  this 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent  State  may  seem  to  your  wisdom  to  demand." 
A  typical  address  from  Amherst  in  January  of  1814  (Noah  Webster  presiding) 
pledged  to  the  Massachusetts  legislature  the  support  of  the  town  in  any 
measures  the  legislature  should  see  fit  to  adopt  to  restore  peace,  "either 
alone  or  in  conjunction  with  neighboring  States." 


DISUNION  MOVEMENTS 


433 


Ctntinrl  Miutwd  Atomm+nii. 

POUT  Of  BOST(kV— 1814. 

M*»niv,  M*.  7,  or.  beat  Ufm,  •  om  Th**rvaslQ tm. 
Uft  three  on  Cntwrday  t**t,  and  spoke,  in  the  river, 
the  English  Stoop  wh5ek  had  bMwcamut  orto  Ctm- 
den,  from  whence  "he  had  aaails  hrr  canape  a  the 
itHcHt,  while  the  British  tmtdnm.mm  before  the 
nbV  The  Hoptvaaw  the  Alben  B*h  K^.  sck  a. 
ato  eanv:  between  "franklin  and  fi.orgr's  bland  — 
Mqndav  forenoon,  m  » small  privateer  kch.  clone  un- 
der fcOBer's  UUnd.  etandme,  off  ;  sunpoaad  to  he  the 
l^nenburg.  When  the  Ho|>e  left  1  Horasste**a,  the 
militia  were  flockmR  to  Cundeu  from,  all  qiuirtm 

7*4,  or.  (below),  .loop  Poll/,  Gejer,  from  Wsldo- 
be«r\  with  wood.  On  Sunday  NfMA  <nT  Cape-Ana, 
Mowing  fresh  and  stormy,  was  hailed  from  a  itoop, 
ft*  people  on  heart}  of  which  said  tiny  did  not  know 
where  diev  were,  being  tnwwi,  and  none*  ted  • 
pik*t  to  na'v  irate  her  in.  Bhenrmsd  to  be  tW  JoJfcr. 
•oji  pnrkct,  (late  Korwthe)  of  >od  from  Providence 
for  K.Y.M-k,earp>»ali,  in  ponrssins  of  $  EnrfVv 
men,  having  bee»*aptaired  on  Tuesday  U»t,  oft'  r*t 
Judith,  by  '*•  Minerva  privateer,  and  ordered  for 
Halife  « .  Capt.  Revcr  * U  rro.uestr.1  to  take  chirr* 
of  the  vrtewl.  -ml  pet  h^r  intn  the  ftrat  port,  and  he 
nu-wdhigSj  beoeght  her  in  here,  UMjnther  with  the 
imu-mv.  On  the  an-md  *4  the  two  vessels  in  the 
Urhner,  ike  P-ngHshmen  took  to  tknir  boat/sal  neat 
me  of  the  Wards. 


Pri\*aieer  M**  morn's  Cruize. 

A%v,  7.     On  WiMUr  armed  prlrainrT 


SECOND  PILLAR 

O/tuir  FEDEM-tL  EDIFICE  reared. 

LEGISLATURE  OF  COJfJfBCTICUT. 

h mttobd.  aov.  7.    The.  joint  Committee 

of  the  Legislature  of  this  State  to  whom  was 

referred  the  communication  from  the  Govern- 

or  of  Massachusetts,  have  reported  at  much 

length  and  with  great  ability    en  the  subjects 

connected  with  the  objects  of  their  nii*»i(m. 

la  conclusion  the  Committee  jay, 

»  In  what  manner  the  multiped  evib  which  we 
fcrt  and  fear,  are  to  be  remedied,  m  a  queafieaof  the 
highest  moment,  and  ileaerves  the  rreaktt  considerV 
i!uo.  The  documents  transmitiid  by  His  £xcvMency 
the  Governor  .of  Majwaelmaetta.  pretent,  in.  the  ©pin- 
ion  of  the  Committee,  an  eligible  merlmd  of  combm- 
lag  the  Wisdom  oV  Nr w-KngUnd,  in  devising.  An  full 
consultation',  a  proper  covrac  to-  be  adopted,  cons  la- 
tent with  our  obligations  to  Uw  United  States." 

They  therefore  recommend,  that  Seven  Del- 
egates from  this  State  he  appointed  to  meet 
the  Delegate*  from  theCommonwealth  of  Mas* 
sacnusetts,  aad  of  any  other  of  tho  Kew-Eng- 
land  States,  »t  Hartford,  on  the  ls(h  Decem- 
ber, t»  confer  with  them  on  the  subjects  pro- 
pose* by  a  Resolution  of  said  Common  weshh, 
and  upon  any  other  subjocta  which  may  come 
before  them,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  and 
recoannatnding  soch  measures  for  the  safety 
and  welfare  of  those  States,  aa  may.  consist 
with  our  obligations  aa  members  of  the  na- 
tional Union.  This  report  b*S been  adopted  in 
both  Houses  and  the  following  persons  have 
been  appointed  Delegates  :— 

Hia  Honor  CHAUNCCY  QOOIMJUCE, 
Kan.  J  AUKS.  HILUIOUSB, 
Hon.  JOHN  THK M)WWJ, 
U.m.  ZP.PHANtAH  »WWT. 
Hon.  NATHANIEL  SMITH, 
Hon.  CALVIN  GODDARI*. 
Hon.  UOGER  M.  SHERMAN. 

THIRD  Pn.LAR  BA1SBD. 

LEG  t$UHV*9  OF  MHO  DB-ISLJM-D. 

Hoviotuct,  nov.s.  On  Tuesday  the  Le- 
K>slature  of  this  State  convened  in  this  town. 
His  Excellency  Governor  Jonas  the  same  day 
sent  them  a  message,  containing  an  able,  in- 
dependent and  intelligent  developcment  of  the 
situation  of  the  National  and  Stale  affairs,  and 
communicated  to  them  the  Important  Resolu- 
tions and  Communications  of  the  Governor  and 
Legislature  of  MaaswOhuaetta,  oa  the  subject 

Photographic  Reproduction  of  Parts  of  Two  Columns  of  the 

Centinel  for  November  9,  1814. 

(Itt  the  original  there  is  an  intervening  column  of  lesslnterest.) 


Mammoth,  Opt.  Franklin,  from  a  eruiar. 
•peftkinir  and  boarding  a  ntimht-r  of  Rntafl,  French, 
Swednh  and  Portuguese  ve*el*.  the  mad.-  the  fid- 
lowing  Hriti«n  prisv*  .'—June  2d,  1814,  aloop  Par- 
mer, a  rteafMure.  Jnh  IT,  hrig  Britannia,  with  hmv 
ber,  &x  burnt  her.  20th,  »ehV  brothers,,  with  ftah, 
pti»  priionors  on  bo*rM  her,  and  ordered  her  to  8c 
John*  24  h,  hrhr  L>jni»  snd  r.rijr  Ano-Eiiaa,  both 
in  hall«»4,  and  burnt  them.  35th,  brir  Giiti,  In  bn> 
last,  (rave  her  up  to  th»  priMners.  2Wh,  brig  Aiea- 
Uy;  lumber,  be.,  acnrtlad  her.  Sfth,  arh'r  tteodm- 
lent,  f»h,  |f-4te  her  tip  to  poisoners.  Aug-  2J,  bng 
garsh,  fair,  took  ont  60  boss,  and  .bunt  bee  it, 
brig  Mr  yjm.Ur,  front  W  I  far  Holland,  snr^sr,  rum, 
sue.  manned  and  ordered  in.  Sjme  day,  brirCfcurtotUv 
sugnr,kc  ordered  in.  I!Mi,  hrig  No.  «7,  tranaport, 
it  hallaat,  hlowiughar<l,conldnot  board  her.  17>h, 
barque  Mary,  oiLfce.  tor  lrela><d,  nrdered  in.  18th, 
bris:  Was,  with  timber,  put7i  prisoners  nn  hnardand 
jriwnrrup  3&h|-b«iggir4iuiiM.IVpli*m.friiit,ke. 
givenuptoprisiieeri.  a?lhKg»ti.it  BesaHnv*s,l»ut 
and  sVtnafc  girreenmentstr.re-,  »1  rcli  were  thrown  M 
verbmrd,  and  r<^"i  irrren  an.    S  ot.  Uth ,  sck'r  R»  - 

el,  Ish,  bornt.  Or.t  6th,  ship  Mentor,  fr  Gngtand 
tfeerbra, ordered  ra.  Itnh.  ulnp  Champion,  Ir.  do. 
for  do.  cargo  rrtle  jrnnda,  t«ek  t!irm  «A  and  gave  her 
wp  to  prisoner*  15ih,  eeb'r  Thomas,  (ish,  wrte,  ke. 
took  ont  •eveearnrtitr^.and  «svr  her  up  te  aviaonrrs. 
The  nentrsU  were  prrwut'  -d-»o  pr«rvd  nsmnlei'ed 
The  Mammoth  sebing.  to  llaltimiwe,  and  her  p/in«i- 

Kcniis etg  gttannd  kiaa  been  the  Rngtiah  channel  anil 
rofWwrevf   thr-hka  made  bet  Wren  2  and  MO  prj- 
mr/feur.    Nweof  bar  p/isM 


434  THE  WAR,  OF   1812 

pendence."1  The  Boston  Centinel  (September  12)  announced  that  the 
old  Union  was  practically  dissolved ;  and,  November  9,  with  plain  refer- 
ence to  the  Boston  Chronicle'' s  famous  illustration  of  1788  [page  327], 
it  signified  the  successful  formation  of  a  new  confederacy,  in  its  an- 
nouncement that  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  had  followed  Massa- 
chusetts in  choosing  delegates  to  the  Hartford  Convention. 

December  15,  the  Hartford  Convention  began  its  month-long 
secret  session.  For  some  reason  (probably  in  order  to  secure 
greater  unanimity  in  some  of  the  States),  it  did  not  take  radi- 
cal action.  It  talked  State  sovereignty  and  nullification  ; 2  it 
blustered  and  threatened;  it  demanded,  as  an  ultimatum, 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  (which  would  have  rendered 
the  Government  impotent  in  a  crisis),  and  the  immediate  sur- 
render to  the  States  of  control  over  their  own  troops  and  taxes 
(which  would  have  been  a  virtual  dissolution  of  union).  It 
then  adjourned,  to  give  time  for  negotiation  with  the  Govern- 
ment, having  provided  for  a  new  convention,  to  be  held  a  little 
later.3 


1  January  15,  1815,  the  Boston  Gazette  advised  Madison  to  get  a  faster 
horse  than  he  had  when  he  fled  from  Washington  before  the  British  raid. 
"  He  must  be  able  to  escape  at  a  greater  rate  than  forty  miles  a  day,  or  the 
sioift  vengeance  of  New  England  will  overtake  the  wretched  miscreant  in  his 
flight." 

2  "  In  cases  of  deliberate,  dangerous,  and  palpable  infractions  of  the  Con- 
stitution [by  Congress]  affecting  the  sovereignty  of  a  State  and  the  liberties 
of  the  people,  it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  such  a  State  to  interpose 
its  authority  for  their  protection.  .  .  .  When  emergencies  arise  which  are 
either  beyond  the  reach  of  the  judicial  tribunals,  or  too  pressing  to  admit  of 
the  delay  incident  to  their  forms,  States,  which  have  no  common  umpire, 
must  be  their  own  judges  and  execute  their  own  decisions.  ...  It  will  be 
proper  for  the  several  States  to  await  [the  action  of  President  and  Congress 
on  pending  measures]  and  so  to  use  their  power,  according  to  the  character 
these  measures  shall  finally  assume,  as  effectually  to  protect  their  own  sover- 
eignty and  the  rights  and  liberties  of  their  citizens."  Cf.  Kentucky  Resolu- 
tions of  1798-1799.  The  guarded  "final  report"  is  printed  in  MacDonald's 
Select  Documents,  199-207. 

8  Henry  Adams  says  of  the  Convention  that  it  "  was  itself  a  violation  of 
the  Constitution  [Art.  I,  sec.  10,  par.  3] .  The  final  report  does  not  propose 
secession;  but  every  proposition  in  it  looks  to  that  end.  .  .  .*  The  next  and 
easy  step  of  sequestrating  taxes  was  one  to  which  the  State  [Massachusetts] 


DISUNION  MOVEMENTS  435 

The  unexpected  announcement  of  peace  brought  the  whole 
movement  to  an  ignominious  collapse.  The  new  spirit  of 
nationalism,  which  at  once  swept  over  the  country  (§  271), 
discredited  the  Hartford  Convention,  buried  the  Federalist 
party,  and  drove  the  old  New  England  leaders  from  public 
life.  The  rest  of  their  years  they  spent  in  explaining  to  an 
indifferent  world  that  they  had  not  meant  anything  anyway.1 
The  peculiar  meanness  of  the  disunion  movement  of  1814,  as 
compared  with  other  like  movements  in  our  history,  lies  in 
the  fact  that  it  was  a  stab  in  the  back  to  the  Nation  already 
engaged  in  desperate  foreign  war. 

For  Further  Reading  on  Divisions  III  and  IV.  —  To  attempt  to  un- 
tangle the  complicated  story  of  our  foreign  relations  leading  to  the  war  is 
hardly  worth  while,  except  for  the  special  student  of  diplomatic  history. 
McMaster's  account  of  the  whole  war  period  (Vol.  IV)  is  exceedingly 
readable,  but  very  diffuse.  Henry  Adams  continues  the  great  authority, 
but  is  altogether  too  extended  a  treatment  for  the  young  student.  Adams's 
New  England  Federalism  is  a  valuable  collection  of  documents  bearing  on 
the  disunion  movements  from  1803  to  1815.  Babcock's  Bise  of  American 
Nationality  (early  chapters)  contains  the  best  brief  account. 


stood  pledged,  in  the  event  of  a  refusal  by  President  and  Congress  to  sur- 
render them  [voluntarily].  After  such  an  act,  the  establishment  of  a  New 
England  Confederacy  could  hardly  be  a  matter  of  choice." 

1  An  admirable  summary  of  the  movement,  desirable  reading  for  every 
student,  may  be  found  in  Theodore  Roosevelt's  Gouverneur  Morris,  352-361. 
On  the  results  of  the  war,  see  §  271,  below. 


V 


M 


CHAPTER   XII 


A  NEW  AMERICANISM,  1815-1829 

271.  Meaning  of  the  Period.  —  The  war  had  originated  in  blunder. 
It  had  cost  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  and  thirty  thousand  lives 
(besides  that  incalculable  waste  and  agony  that  always  goes  with  war). 
It  had  been  conducted  discreditably.  And  it  was  ended  without  settling 
—  or  even  mentioning — the  questions  that  caused  it.  Still  it  proved 
distinctly  worth  while,  in  the  new  impulse  it  gave  to  Americanism  and 
Nationality. 

a.  The  long  course  of  contemptuous  treatment  by  both 
England  and  France  (brought  home  unforgetably  by  the  war) 
freed  us  at  last  from  "  colonialism/' 1  and  forced  us  into  lasting 
independence  of  thought  and  feeling.  The  popular  imagina- 
tion quickly  forgot  failures  and  shames,  and  found  material 
for  self-glorification  even  in  the  campaigns.  For  a  while  there 
had  seemed  serious  danger  of  humiliating  curtailment  of  our 
frontier.  All  the  more  buoyantly,  at  the  boast,  —  "  Not  an 
inch  of  territory  ceded  or  lost,"  —  the  spirits  of  the  people 
rebounded  into  extravagant  self-confidence.  Once  more  we 
had  "whipped  England."  During  the  years  that  followed, 
this  exuberant  Americanism  was  a  mighty  factor  (1)  in  eager 
occupation  of  our  own  wild  territory,  (2)  in  attempts  to  extend 
our  bounds,  and  (3)  in  warning  Europe  to  keep  hands  off  this 
hemisphere. 

b.  The  war  had  brought  even  the  Old  Republicans  to  enact 
stamp  duties,  excises,  and  "  force  bills  "  ; 2  and  it  had  placed  in 
control,  for  years  to  come,  the  Young  Republicans,  even  more 


1  Name  the  two  other  factors  which  have  been  referred  to  as  contributing 
to  this  result. 

2  Congress  gave  Jefferson  despotic  authority  to  enforce  the  embargo. 

436 


THE  WEST  437 

committed  to  "  broad  construction."  After  the  war,  this  new 
impulse  to  Nationality,  unhampered  by  constitutional  scruples, 
expressed  itself  (1)  in  internal  improvements,  to  bind  more 
closely  the  parts  of  the  Union;  (2)  in  protective  tariffs,  to 
render  the  Nation  economically,  as  well  as  politically,  inde- 
pendent of  Europe ;  and  (3)  in  a  new  National  Bank,  to  finance 
the  government ;  while  (4)  the  same  sentiment  supported  the 
Supreme  Court  in  a  remarkable  series  of  decisions  extending 
the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government. 

These  seven  movements,  intimately  interrelated,  are  the  important 
features  of  the  period  from  the  war  to  the  rise  of  Jacksonian  Democracy. 
Two  years  of  the  period  belong  to  the  close  of  Madison's  administration. 
Eight  years  make  up  the  administrations  of  Monroe,  Madison's  Secre- 
tary of  State  and  political  heir.  The  last  four  years  (John  Quincy 
Adams'  administration)  mark  the  introduction  of  new  issues  and  the 
break-up  of  the  era. 

; I.   GROWTH   OF   THE    WEST 

272.  Three  Factors  explain  the  marvelous  westward  move- 
ment of  population  that  characterized  the  period.  (1)  The 
home  seekers  were  furnished  by  a  rapid  increase  in  immigration 
from  Europe,  together  with  an  impulse  at  home  (yet  more 
important)  to  escape  the  demoralized  industries  of  the  North 
and  the  impoverished  plantations  of  the  South.  (2)  The  war 
extinguished  Indian  title  to  vast  territory  previously  closed  to 
settlement,  and  the  Government  soon  adopted  a  land  policy 
more  liberal  even  than  before,  so  providing  the  homes.1 
(3)  Development  in  steam  navigation  and  the  construction  of 
roads  and  canals  afforded  new  facilities  to  transport  the  home 
seekers  to  the  land  of  new  homes. 


1  The  credit  system  (§  263)  had  not  worked  well.  Optimistic  pioneers  bought 
large  amounts  of  land  and  found  themselves  unable  to  make  the  later  pay- 
ments. In  1820  Congress  abolished  the  plan,  but  began  to  offer  80-acre  lots 
at  $1.25  an  acre.  One  hundred  dollars  would  now  secure  full  title  to  a  farm. 
Settlers  who  had  previously  made  some  payments  on  the  credit  plan  were 
given  title  to  as  many  acres  as  they  had  paid  for  at  this  new  rate. 


438  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

a.  Immigration  from  Europe  had  been  fairly  uniform  from 
the  Revolution  to  the  War  of  1812,  —  some  four  or  five  thousand 
a  year.  In  1817  the  number  of  immigrants  rose  at  a  bound  to 
22,000 ;  and  the  fifteen  years,  1815-1830,  brought  us  altogether 
a  half-million,  —  most  of  them  to  find  their  way  at  once  to  new 
lands  in  the  West. 

This  immigration  was  mainly  from  Ireland  and  Germany,  with  a  large 
English  element.  The  next  sixteen  years  brought  more  than  twice  as 
many  ;  and  then  the  Irish  famine  o$  1846-1847  (Modern  History,  §  544) 
sent  us  a  million  from  Ireland  alone  in  four  years  (§  343). 

This  westward  stream  of  people  was  tremendously  augmented 
by  a  movement  which  seemed  to  threaten  the  older  States  with 
depopulation.  Return  of  peace  in  Europe  put  an  end  to  New 
England's  monopoly  of  the  world's  carrying  trade ;  and  at  the 
same  time  the  new  manufactures,  which  had  been  built  up  while 
the  war  shut  out  English  goods,  were  exposed  to  ruinous 
foreign  competition  (§  279  a).  In  the  South,  the  great  planters 
had  been  declining  in  wealth  for  a  generation;  and  the  six 
years  of  embargo  and  war,  with  no  market  for  tobacco  or  cotton, 
had  hastened  their  ruin.1  "  Bad  times  "  always  turn  attention 
to  western  farms  ;  and  whole  populations  in  seaboard  districts 
were  seized  now  with  "  the  Ohio  fever."  "  Old  America  seems 
to  be  breaking  up  and  moving  westward,"  wrote  Morris  Birk- 
beck  in  1817,  while  journeying  on  the  National  Road.  "  We 
are  seldom  out  of  sight,  as  we  travel  this  grand  track  toward 
the  Ohio,  of  family  groups  behind  or  before  us."  2 

b.  The  Indian  campaigns  of  the  War  of  1812  were  to  have 
weighty  consequences.  Just  before  war  with  England  began, 
Tecumthe,  a  notable  organizer  and  patriot,  united  all  the 
tribes  of  the  West  into  a  formidable  confederacy  to  resist 
White  advance.  General  Harrison  attacked  and  defeated 
Tecnmthe's  forces  at  Tippecanoe,  a  tributary  of  the  Wabash 

1  Jefferson  and  Monroe  were  almost  in  a  state  of  poverty  before  their  death, 
and  Madison's  fortune  was  seriously  reduced. 

2  A  European  observer,  himself  seeking  a  home  in  the  west.  A  graphic 
account  of  the  westward  movement  is  given  in  McMaster,  I,  381  ff. 


THE  WEST 


439 


S* 


This  Map,  with  Permission,  is  slightly  simplified  from  that  of 
Dr.  Frederick  J.  Turner  in  his  NEW  WEST. 


440  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

river  (November,  1811),  while  that  chieftain  was  absent 
among  the  Southern  Indians.  In  1812  the  struggle  merged 
in  the  larger  war.  The  Battle  of  the  Thames  (§  268)  takes  its 
chief  importance  from  the  death  there  of  Tecumthe ;  and  the 
Battle  of  Horseshoe  Bend  (in  the  winter  of  1814),  where 
Andrew  Jackson  crushed  the  Southern  Indians,  was  far  more 
significant  for  American  development  than  was  the  victory  at 
New  Orleans.  When  conflict  was  over,  treaties  with  the 
Indians  opened  to  White  settlement  —  as  new  provinces  won 
by  arms  —  much  of  Georgia,  most  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi, 
all  of  Missouri,  and  half  of  Indiana,  Illinois,,  and  Michigan. 

c.  In  1811  the  steamboat  Orleans  was  launched  on  the  Ohio 
at  Pittsburg;  but  there  was  no  marked  development  of  steam 
navigation  on  western  waters  until  after  the  war  (§  264). 
Then  quickly  the  steamboat  became  the  chief  means  of 
travel.  In  1820  sixty  such  vessels  plied  on  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi,  and  some  of  them  were  finding  their  way  up  the 
muddy  waters  of  the  Missouri,  between  herds  of  grazing 
buffalo.  It  took  five  days  to  go  from  St.  Louis  to  New 
Orleans,  and  two  weeks  to  return. 

Still  it  was  long  before  the  steamboat  replaced  wholly  flat- 
boat  and  raft  (§  184).  For  many  years,  indeed,  such  craft 
continued  to  increase;  and  flatboatmen,  raftsmen,  and  steamer 
deck  hands  constituted,  as  Dr.  Turner  says,  "  a  turbulent  and 
reckless  population,  living  on  the  country  through  which  they 
passed,  fighting  and  drinking  in  true  l  half-horse,  half-alligator ' 
style."1 

A  steamboat  could  be  built  anywhere  on  the  banks  of  a  river,  out  of 
timber  sawn  on  the  spot.  At  first,  engine  and  boilers  had  to  be  trans- 
ported from  the  East;  but  soon  they  began  to  be  manufactured  at 
Pittsburg,  whence  they  could  be  shipped  by  water.  The  woods  on  the 
banks  supplied  fuel. 

Some  of  the  vessels  were  veritable  "floating  palaces"  for  that  day,  — 
"  fairy  structures  of    Oriental    gorgeousness  and    splendor,"    exclaims 

1  "Mark  Twain  "  who  shared  this  picturesque  "river  life,"  has  preserved 
it  best  in  literature. 


THE  WEST  441 

one  exultant  Westerner,  "  rushing  down  the  Mississippi  as  on  the  wings 
of  the  wind,  or  plowing  up  between  the  forests  and  walking  against 
the  mighty  current  as  things  of  life;  bearing  speculators,  merchants, 
dandies,  fine  ladies  .  .  .  with  pianos,  novels,  cards,  dice,  and  flirting, 
and  love  making,  and  drinking  ;  and,  on  the  deck,  three  hundred  fellows, 
perhaps,  who  have  seen  alligators  and  fear  neither  gunpowder  nor 
whisky." 

Flatboat  life  made  a  somber  contrast  to  this  picture.  Each  boat  was 
manned  by  a  crew  of  six  to  twelve  men.  A  journey  from  Louisville  to 
New  Orleans  took  six  months.  Many  boats  did  not  go  so  far.  When- 
ever the  cargo  was  sold  out,  the  boat  itself  was  broken  up  and  sold  for 
lumber  ;  and  the  crew  returned  home  by  steamer,  instead  of  on  foot 
as  in  1800.  In  1830  a  traveler  on  the  Mississippi  saw  ten  or  twelve 
such  boats  at  every  village  he  passed. 

For  a  time,  almost  the  sole  route  from  the  seaboard  to  the 
West  was  the  Ohio  —  after  that  stream  had  been  reached 
either  by  the  recent  Pennsylvania  turnpike  to  Pittsburg  (§  265) 
or  by  the  National  Road  to  Wheeling.  But  soon  several  new 
roads  were  added. 

(1)  Planters  abandoned  the  worn-out  tobacco  lands  of 
Virginia  and  North  Carolina  for  the  "  cotton  belt,"  —  a  broad 
sweep  of  black  alluvial  soil *  running  through  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi,  between  the  coast  and  the 
pine  barrens  of  the  foothills.  To  even  the  more  distant  parts 
of  this  region  they  found  comparatively  easy  access  by  land, 
through  central  Georgia,  with  their  caravans  of  slaves  and 
goods.  Thus  the  Lower  South 2  came  into  American  history, 
soon  to  take  to  itself  the  leadership  in  Southern  politics  so  long 
held  by  Virginia. 

(2)  The  wagon  road  from  Virginia  into  central  Kentucky 
was  improved,  and  each  year  it  bore  a  large  immigration  to 

1  The  name  "black  belt,"  applied  to  this  district,  refers  sometimes  to  the 
soil,  but  more  especially  to  the  concentration  of  Negro  population  there. 

2  Dr.  Turner  suggests  graphically  the  contrast  between  the  migrations  into 
Northwest  and  Southwest:  here,  the  pioneer  farmer,  bearing  family  and 
household  goods  in  a  canvas-covered  wagon ;  there,  the  aristocratic,  gloved 
planter,  in  family  carriage,  attended  by  servants,  packs  of  hunting  dogs,  and 
train  of  slaves,  their  nightly  camp  fires  lighting  up  the  wilderness. 


1& 


A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 


that  State.  Part  of  this  colonization  passed  on  across  the 
lower  Ohio  into  southern  Indiana  and  Illinois,  or  across  the 
Mississippi  into  Missouri;  and  another  part  moved  through 
Tennessee  down  the  bank  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  cotton  belt, 
to  meet  the  stream  of  immigration  there  from  the  East. 

This  double  movement  (as  Dr.  Turner  reminds  us),  with  many  other 
features  of  Western  life,  is  illustrated  by  the  families  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
and  Jefferson  Davis.  The  two  boys  were  born  near  one  another  in 
Kentucky  in  1809  and  1808.  The  Davis  family  soon  moved  on  to  Louisi- 
ana and  then  to  Mississippi,  had  its  part  under  Jackson  in  the  War  of 
1812,  and  became  typical  planters  of  the  black  belt.  In  1810  Thomas 
Lincoln,  a  rather  shiftless  carpenter,  rafted  his  family  across  the  Ohio, 
with  his  kit  of  tools  and  several  hundred  gallons  of  whisky,  to  settle  in 
southern  Indiana.  For  a  year  the  family  shelter  was  a  "three-faced 
camp ' '  (a  shed  of  poles  open  on  one  side  except  for  hanging  skins  or 
canvas);  and  for  some  years  more  the  home  was  a  one-room  log  cabin 
without  floor  or  window. 

When  Abraham  Lincoln  was  a  raw-boned  youth  of  six  feet  four,  with 
blue  shinbones  showing  between  the  tops  of  his  socks  and  the  bottom  of 
his  trousers,  the  family  removed  again,  to  Illinois.  Abraham,  now 
twenty-one,  after  clearing  a  piece  of  land  for  his  father,  set  up  for  himself. 
He  had  had  very  few  weeks  of  schooling  ;  but  he  had  been  fond  of  prac- 
ticing himself  in  speaking  and  writing  clearly  and  forcefully,  and  he  knew 
well  five  or  six  good  books  —  the  only  books  of  any  sort  that  had  chanced 
in  his  way.  After  this  date,  he  walked  six  miles  and  back  one  evening 
to  borrow  an  English  grammar,  and  was  overjoyed  at  finding  it.  He  was 
scrupulously  honest  and  fair  in  all  dealings,  and  intellectually  honest  with 
himself, —  and  champion  wrestler  among  the  neighborhood  bullies.  He 
made  a  flatboat  voyage  to  New  Orleans ;  clerked  in  a  country  store, 
where  he  was  the  best  story-teller  among  the  loose-mouthed  loafers  who 
gathered  there;  studied  law,  and  went  into  politics, —  finally  to  meet  his 
childhood  neighbor,  Jefferson  Davis,  in  new  relations. 

(3)  Toward  the  close  of  the  period,  a  yet  more  important 
road  was  opened.  Men  of  speculative  minds  had  long  seen  the 
possibility  of  water  communication  between  the  Atlantic  and 
the  Lakes,  through  American  territory,  by  way  of  the  Hudson 
and  a  canal  along  the  Mohawk  valley.  Gallatin's  plan  of  1808 
(§  265)  included  such  a  canal  at  national  expense,  and  in  1817 
a  Congressional  appropriation  for  internal  improvements,  with 


THE  WEST  443 

this  as  one  object,  failed  only  because  of  Madison's  unexpected 
veto  (§  278).  National  aid  proving  a  delusion,  DeWitt  Clinton, 
governor  of  New  York,  persuaded  the  State  to  take  up  the 
work.  In  1825,  after  eight  years  of  splendid  effort,  the  Erie 
canal  was  completed,  —  350  miles  in  length  from  Albany  to 
Lake  Erie. 

Ten  years  later,  steamers x  began  to  run  from  Buffalo  to  Chicago.  At 
last  New  England  had  a  fit  route  to  the  West. 

DeWitt  Clinton  had  been  jeered  as  a  dreamer  of  dreams  ;  and,  in  truth, 
the  engineering  difficulties  for  that  day,  and  the  cost  for  the  State,  meant 
more  effort  than  does  the  Panama  Canal  to  the  United  States  to-day. 
The  ditch  was  forty  feet  wide.  It  had  eighty -one  locks,  to  overcome  a 
grade  of  seven  hundred  feet.  Before  the  end,  the  cost  of  seven  millions 
appalled  the  most  enthusiastic  champions  of  the  scheme  ;  but  cost  and  up- 
keep have  been  more  than  met  from  the  first  by  the  tolls  (half  a  million 
dollars  the  first  year,  and  twice  that  annually  before  1830) ,  while  the 
added  prosperity  to  the  State  outran  even  Clinton's  hope.  Farm  produce 
in  the  western  counties  doubled  in  value  ;  land  trebled  ;  freight  from  New 
York  to  Buffalo  fell  from  $120  to  $20  a  ton.  In  one  year  the  twenty 
vessels  on  Lake  Erie  became  two  hundred  eighteen.  The  forests  of  the 
western  part  of  the  State  were  converted  into  lumber,  staves,  and  pearl- 
ash,  and  their  place  was  taken  by  farms  and  thriving  villages.  New 
York  City,  the  port  for  all  this  district,  doubled  its  population  between 
1820  and  1830,  taking  Philadelphia's  place  as  the  leading  American  city, 
and  securing  more  than  half  the  total  import  trade  of  the  United  States. 

(4)  Pennsylvania  found  that  her  recent  expense  for  good  roads  by 
land  counted  for  little  against  New  York's  water  communication  with  the 
West,  and  in  1826  she  began  her  own  system  of  canals  from  the  Susque- 
hanna to  Pittsburg  and  Lake  Erie.  This  doubled  the  value  of  farm  prod- 
uce in  the  eastern  Ohio  valley.  In  central  Ohio,  wheat  rose  from  25  or 
37  cents  (according  to  the  year)  to  50  or  75  cents. 

The  success  of  the  Erie  and  Pennsylvania  canals  over- 
stimulated  canal  building,  and  the  universal  rage  for  internal 
improvements  resulted  in  many  other  unwise  efforts  during  the 
next  fifteen  years.  In  particular,  the  new  States  entered  upon 
an  orgy  of  road  building  far  beyond  their   needs   or   means. 

1  Walk-in-the-  Water  was  launched  on  Lake  Erie  in  1818,  but  steamboats 
did  not  ply  regularly  to  Chicago  until  after  1835. 


444  •    A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

With  less  than  a  half  million  people,  Illinois  bonded  herself 
for  fourteen  million  dollars  for  such  improvements.1  Between 
1825  and  1840  nearly  five  thousand  miles  of  canals  were  con- 
structed in  America,  —  of  which  four  fifths  were  either  needless 
or  were  replaced  soon  by  the  railroad  (§  290). 

Accordingly,  this  era  was  the  period  of  the  creation  of  State  debts.  From 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  to  1820  the  country  had  known  practi- 
cally nothing  of  this  sort.  In  1820  State  debts  were  under  thirteen  mil- 
lions. In  1830  they  had  doubled.  In  1835  they  were  sixty-six  millions, 
and  in  1840  two  hundred  millions.  Most  of  this  enormous  indebtedness, 
far  exceeding  State  and  Continental  indebtedness  for  the  Revolution, 
had  been  incurred  by  new  and  poor  States,  and  represented  European 
capital  loaned  to  them.  When  the  crisis  of  1837  came  (§  310),  the  peo- 
ple awoke  suddenly  to  consciousness  of  their  folly  and  to  a  knowledge 
that  vast  sums  had  been  wasted  or  stolen  by  careless  and  corrupt  man- 
agement. In  the  popular  rage  and  despair,2  several  States  repudiated 
their  obligations  to  bondholders,  though  some  of  them  afterward  re- 
deemed their  honor  in  full  or  in  part. 

273.  Growth  of  a  "  New"  West.  — Such  are  the  causes  which  partly 
explain  the  marvelous  western  growth.  Between  the  admission  of  Ohio 
and  that  of  Louisiana  there  had  been  an  interval  of  ten  years.  Now  in 
six  years  six  States  came  in  :  Indiana,  in  1816  ;  Mississippi,  1817  ;  Illinois, 
1818;  Alabama,  1819;  Maine,  1820;  and  Missouri,  1821.  During  the 
next  decade  the  western  States  grew  at  the  rate  of  from  a  hundred  to  a 
hundred  and  fifty  per  cent,3  while  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  remained 
almost  stationary,  sinking  to  the  third  and  eighth  places.  Ohio  alone, 
in  1830,  had  a  million  people,  — more  than  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut 
together.  The  center  of  population  in  1830  was  125  miles  west  of  Balti- 
more (§  246);  and  the  Mississippi  valley  contained  more  than  three  and  a 
half  millions  of  our  total  population  of  thirteen  millions,  while  a  million 
more,  in  the  back  districts  of  the  older  States,  really  belonged  to  this  west- 
ern movement.     New  England's  total  population  was  only  two  million, 


1  Morse's  Lincoln  (1,  53  ff.)  has  a  quaint  description  of  this  movement. 

2  State  constitutions,in  the  years  that  followed, often  forbade  state  enterprise 
of  this  sort.  This  was  one  reason  why  the  railroads,  then  just  developing, 
were  allowed  to  fall  into  private  hands.    Cf.  §  290,  close. 

3  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  were  the  only  western  States  with  a  smaller 
ratio  of  growth,  and  they  had  a  large  increase. 


THE  WEST 


445 


and  she  had  gained  only  half  a  million  in  the  last  decade  (even  including 
the  growing  "frontier"  State  of  Maine),  while  the  Mississippi  valley 
States  had  gained  a  million  and  a  half.  Indiana,  alone,  in  the  decade 
from  1810  to  1820,  grew  from  24,000  to  147,000!! 


1  In  1830  Chicago  and  Milwaukee  were  still  mere  fur-trading  stations. 
Cleveland  harbor  was  beginning  to  take  on  a  commercial  air,  largely  because 
of  a  canal  into  interior  waterways.    Pittsburg,  with  12,000  people,  was  dingy 


446  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

Throughout  the  period,  Virginia  held  first  place  as  mother 
State  for  the  new  commonwealths  both  north  and  south  of  the 
Ohio.1  The  first  immigration  to  the  Lower  South,  like  that 
into  Kentucky  in  Revolutionary  days,  came  mainly  from  the 
yeoman  class,  without  slaves,  or  with  only  one  or  two.  But 
this  democratic  society  of  small  farmers  was  soon  forced  back 
from  the  fat  lands  of  the  cotton  belt  to  the  foothills  by  the 
influx  of  aristocratic  planters.  There  the  small  farmers  con- 
tinued to  make  the  bulk  of  the  population,  much  as  in  western 
Pennsylvania  or  North  Carolina,  raising,  mainly,  not  cotton  or 
tobacco  for  export,  but  wheat,  corn,  and  live  stock. 

New  England  was  populating  her  own  frontier  counties  in 
Maine,  and  also,  in  good  measure,  the  western  districts  of  New 
York  and  the  Lake  region  of  Ohio.  Her  sons  did  not  begin  to 
come  in  large  numbers  into  the  great  central  valley  until  the 
close  of  this  period.  So  far  as  they  did  come,  they  were  from  her 
ivestern  farming  communities,  democratic,  not  Federalist,  in 
sympathy.  They  kept  much  of  the  old  Puritan  seriousness 
and  moral  earnestness,  mingled  with  a  radicalism  like  that  of 


with  coal  smoke  from  its  iron  mills.  Cincinnati,  or  "Porkopolis,"  in  the 
center  of  a  rich  farming  country,  had  25,000  people,  and  took  to  itself  the 
name  "Queen  City  of  the  West."  St.  Louis,  the  point  of  exchange  between 
the  fur  trade  of  the  upper  Mississippi  and  the  Missouri,  on  the  north,  and  the 
steamboat  trade  from  New  Orleans,  boasted  6000.  New  Orleans  remained 
without  much  change. 

Except  for  these  towns,  and  a  few  smaller  places,  the  population  of  the  new 
districts  (outside  the  Black  belt) ,  still  lived  in  log  cabins  and  reproduced  the 
economic  development  of  early  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  From  a  great  high- 
way, like  the  National  Koad  (§  278),  cheaper  but  helpful  "  State  Koads  "  and 
private  turnpikes  began  to  radiate.  Tn  the  absence  of  stone,  Ohio  and  Illinois 
devised  a  ' '  plank  road  ' '  —  long  a  favorite  in  the  West  —  made  by  placing  side 
by  side,  on  a  prepared  level  surface  of  earth,  heavy  planks  from  the  trees  cut 
on  the  "  right  of  way." 

1  Dr.  Turner  has  some  interesting  figures  to  demonstrate  the  preponderance 
of  Southern  immigration.  Of  the  Illinois  legislature  in  1833,  he  tells  us,  58 
members  were  from  the  South,  19  from  the  Middle  States,  and  only  4  from 
New  England.  As  late  as  1850,  two  thirds  the  population  of  Indiana  was 
Southern  in  origin.  Indeed,  the  "Hoosier"  element  was,  originally,  wholly 
from  North  Carolina. 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  447 

original  Puritans  of  the  Roger  Williams  type.  They  were  re- 
formers and  "  come-outers  "  in  religion  and  politics  and  society. 
Temperance  movements,  Mormonism,  Abolitionism,  Bible  soci- 
eties, Spiritualism,  Antimasonry,  schools  and  colleges,  when 
such  things  came  in  the  West,  all  found  their  chief  support  in 
this  small  element  of  the  population. 

II.    FOREIGN  RELATIONS 

274.  Boundaries :  Disarmament  on  the  Lake  Frontier.  —  From 
Waterloo  to  the  Crimean  War  (1815-1854),  Europe  had  no  general  war. 
This  made  it  easier  for  the  United  States  to  withdraw  from  European 
entanglements,  and,  with  one  great  exception  (§  277),  our  foreign  ques- 
tions were  concerned  mainly  with  unsettled  boundaries.  The  Treaty  of 
1783  had  drawn  our  northern  boundary  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
"  due  west"  to  the  Mississippi.  But  Pike's  exploration  (§  262,  close)  had 
made  clear  that  the  Mississippi  rose  almost  "due  south"  of  that  lake. 
Moreover,  the  line  between  the  Louisiana  Province  and  the  British  Pos- 
sessions had  never  been  determined,  before  or  after  our  purchase.  The 
Treaty  of  Ghent  referred  the  matter  to  inquiry  by  a  mixed  commission  ; 
and  the  "  Convention1  of  1818  "  between  England  and  the  United  States 
fixed  the  boundary  at  the  49th  parallel  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to 
the  "Stony  Mountains." 

A  more  important  "Convention"  the  preceding  year  had  introduced 
an  innovation  in  international  practice  and  a  vast  gain  for  humanity. 
The  two  nations  agreed  that  neither  should  keep  armed  vessels  (except 
revenue  cutters)  on  the  Great  Lakes.  This  humane  and  sensible  arrange- 
ment is  the  nearest  approach  to  disarmament  yet  reached  by  international  agree- 
ment. For  the  century  since,  in  striking  contrast  to  the  constant  threat 
of  all  European  frontiers,  however  petty,  with  their  frowning  fortresses 
crowded  with  hostile-minded  soldiery,  Canada  and  the  United  States 
have  smiled  in  constant  friendliness  across  the  peaceful  waters  that 
unite  our  lands.2 

1 A  name  for  an  international  agreement  effected  by  an  exchange  of 
*'  notes  "  rather  than  by  a  formal  "  treaty." 

2  The  efforts  of  cheap  Jingo  politicians  to  make  capital  by  attempting  to 
undo  this  step  in  human  progress,  and  the  greed  of  shipbuilders  on  the  Lakes 
which  puts  forward  like  envious  attempts  upon  the  well-being  of  mankind, 
should  be  sternly  rebuked  by  every  right-thinking  man  and  woman.    Unhap- 


448  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,  ,1815-1829 

275.  The  Northwestern  Fisheries  in  British  waters  we  had  lost 
claim  to  during  the  war.  The  Convention  of  1818  practically  renewed  to 
us  England's  former  concession  (§  162)  of  the  privilege  of  taking  fish,  and 
drying  them  on  the  shore,  on  any  unsettled  portions  of  the  coast  of  Lab- 
rador and  most  of  the  Nova  Scotia  coast,  with  the  provision  that  we 
should  not  take  fish  within  three  miles  of  any  other  "coast,  bays,  .  .  .  or 
harbors'"  of  British  America.  Much  misunderstanding  has  arisen  since 
over  this  wording.  We  have  insisted  upon  drawing  the  three-mile  line 
along  all  the  curves  of  the  coast :  while  England  has  maintained  that  it 
should  be  drawn  from  headland  to  headland,  when  not  more  than  six 
miles  apart,  so  making  a  "bay  or  harbor. ^  -r        ,-.  >    . 

276.  Oregon  Claimed.  —  Our  basis  for  claiming  Oregon  *  has 
been  stated  (§  262).  Both  Russia  and  Spain  claimed  the 
"region  because  of  adjacent  possessions,  the  one  in  Alaska,  the 
other  in  California.  More  serious  were  England's  claims.  Like 
all  the  claimants,  England  had  territory  adjacent  to  this  "no 
man's  land  " ;  like  the  United  States,  she  needed,  through  that 
land,  an  opening  on  the  Pacific  from  her  inland  territory;  and 
she  had  other  claims  corresponding  closely  to  our  own.     (1)  To^, 

-  leave  out  of  account  the  ancient  discovery  by  Captain  Cook, 
Vancouver  had  explored  the  coast  in  an  English  vessel  in  1792 
(just  before  Gray  sailed  into  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia),  barely 
missing  the  mouth  of  the  river.  (2)  The  year  following,  Alex- 
J^v^KMer  McKenzie,  in  the  employ  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company, 
reached  the  region  overland  from  Canada.  Then  (3)  during 
the  War  of  1812,  Hudson  Bay  officers  seized  Astoria.  This 
had  not  been  returned  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace.  Hence  (4) 
England  now  had  possession. 

But  in  the  negotiations  of  1818,  John  Quincy  Adams 
(Monroe's  Secretary  of  State)  put  forward  emphatic  claims  to 


pily,  the  United  States  has  asked,  and  received,  from  Canada,  permission  to 
abrogate  the  arrangemeut  so  far  as  to  keep  training  vessels  on  the  Lakes ;  and 
though  no  direct  harm  has  or  will  result,  this  action  has  undoubtedly  made 
the  great  Convention  somewhat  less  sacred  in  all  eyes. 

1  Oregon  meant  then  an  indefinite  territory  between  Spanish  and  Russian 
possessions  on  the  Pacific  coast.  No  bounds  to  any  one  of  the  three  regions 
had  been  drawn.    Russia  claimed  specifically  to  the  51st  parallel. 


THE  MONROE   DOCTRINE  449 

the  whole  Oregon  district.  The  "Convention"  postponed 
settlement  of  the  question,  leaving  the  territory  open  for  ten 
years  to  occupation  by  both  parties  "without  prejudice  to  the 
claims  of  either."  Then,  in  the  Florida  treaty  of  1819-1821, 
Adams  secured  from  Spain  a  waiver  of  any  claim  she  might 
have  had  north  of  the  42d  parallel.  This  "quitclaim"  was 
construed  by  us  as  a  recognition  from  Spain  that  Oregon  be- 
longed to  the  United  States. 

Thus  the  matter  rested.  In  1828  the  agreement  with  England  for 
joint  occupation  was  renewed,  subject  to  a  year's  notice  by  either  coun- 
try. But  the  debates  in  our  Congress  had  shown  a  preponderance  of 
opinion  that  we  could  never  occupy  so  inaccessible  and  "barren"  a 
region,  and  ought  noc  to  if  we  could.  There  were  enthusiastic  West- 
erners, however,  whose  robust  faith  foresaw  (with  our  great  Secretary) 
that  in  a  few  years  Oregon  would  be  nearer  Washington  than  St.  Louis 
had  been  a  generation  earlier,  and  that  it  was  to  make  our  indispensable 
gateway  to  the  Western  ocean  and  the  lands  of  the  Orient,  —  "  the  long- 
sought  road  to  India."  Said  Benton  of  Missouri,  in  an  impassioned 
oration,  reproaching  Eastern  indifference,  "It  is  time  that  Western  men 
had  some  share  in  the  destinies  of  this  Republic."  1 

/3  277.  The  Monroe  Doctrine.  —  In  1821-1823  two  foreign  perils 
^called  forth  from  the  Administration  the  proclamation  of  the 
new  policy,  America  for  Americans. 

(1)  In  1821  the  Tsar  of  Russia  forbade  citizens  of  other 
powers  even  to  approach  within  a  hundred  miles  of  the  Pacific 
coast,  on  the  American  side,  north  of  the  51st  parallel.  Russia 
had  no  settlements  within  hundreds  of  miles  of  that  line  ;  and 
this  proclamation  was  practically  an  attempt  to  reserve  new 
American  territory  for  future  Russian  colonization.  Moreover, 
it  would  have  turned  the  Bering  Sea,  with  its  invaluable 
fisheries,  into  a  Russian  lake,  absolutely  closed  to  all  other 
peoples.  The  idea  was  peculiarly  abhorrent,  both  because  of 
Russia's   exclusive  commercial   policy  (typified   in  the  proc- 


1  On  these  debates,  see  Turner's  Rise  of  the  New  West,  128-133,  or 
McMaster,  V,  25-26.  For  a  similar  debate,  at  the  renewal  of  the  agreement 
in  1825,  see  McMaster,  V,  481-482. 


450  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1/829 

s 

lamation),  and  because  the  Tsar  was  the  head  of  the  despotic 

"  Holy  Alliance,"  which  at  just  this  time  was  planning  to  ex- 
tend its  political  system  to  South  America  anjl  Mexico. 

(2)  That  plan  was  itself  the  second  peril.  In  1821  the 
United  States  recognized  the  independence  of  the  revolted 
Spanish  American  States  and  appointed  diplomatic  agents  to 
their  governments.  But  the  "league  of  despots,"  known  as 
the  Holy  Alliance,  having  crushed  an  attempt  at  a  republic 
in  Spain  itself,  now  planned  to  reduce  the  former  American 
colonies  of  Spain  to  their  old  subjection.1 

Alone  in  Europe,  England  stood  forth  in  determined  oppo- 
sition ;  and  Canning,  minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  made  four 
separate  friendly  suggestions  to  our  minister  in  England  that 
the  two  English-speaking  powers  join  hands  to  forbid  the 
project.  President  Monroe  (and  his  unofficial  advisers,  Madi- 
son and  Jefferson2)  wished  to  accept  this  offer  for  allied 
action ;  but  John  Quincy  Adams  insisted  strenuously  that  the 
United  States  must  "  not  come  in  as  a  cockboat  in  the  wake 
of  the  British  man-of-war,"  and  carried  the  Cabinet  and 
Monroe  with  him  in  his  plan  for  independent  action. 

Meantime,  Canning  had  acted,  and,  in  his  proud  boast, 
"  called  the  New  World  into  existence,  to  redress  the  balance 
of  the  Old."  His  firm  statement  that  England  would  resist 
the  proposed  attack  upon  the  revolted  American  States  put 
an  abrupt  close  to  the  idea  of  intervention.  But  though  the 
declaration  by  the  Administration  in  the  United  States  came 
later,  it  has  had  a  greater  permanent  significance.  Monroe,  in 
his  message  to  Congress  (really  a  notice  to  European  powers), 
December  2,  1823,  adopted  certain  paragraphs  written  by 
Adams,  since  famous  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine :  — 


1  For  a  brief  outline  of  all  this  story  see  Modem  History,  §§  395-398. 

2  Jefferson  thought  the  matter  "  the  most  momentous  since  the  Declaration 
of  Independence."  England's  mighty  weight  —  the  only  real  peril  to  an 
independent  American  system  —  could  now  be  brought  to  the  side  of  freedom ; 
and  the  fact  would  "  emancipate  the  continent  at  a  stroke."  The  same  result 
was  attained,  in  the  end,  by  separate  action  by  the  two  countries. 


THE  MONROE.  DOCTRINE  451 

[1]  With  special  reference  t6  Russia  and  Oregon, —  "  the  American 
continents  .  .  .  are  hmutfeforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future 
colonization  by  any  European  powers.'''1  £2])  With  regard  to  the  pro- 
posed "intervention"  by  the  Holy  Alliance,^"  The  political  system  of 
the  allied  powers  is  essentially  different  from  that  of  America.1- .  .  .  We 
owe  it  ...  to  those  amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United 
States  and  those  powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt 
on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere,  as 
dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.2  .  .  .  With  the  existing  colonies  .  .  . 
of  any  European  power  we  .  .  .  shall  not  interfere.8  But  with  the  Gov- 
ernments .  .  .  whose  independence  ^we^have  .  .  .  acknowledged,  we 
could  not  view  any  interpositiowffor  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or 
controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power, 
in  any  other  light  than  as  a  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
toward  the  United  States.'"1 

In  justification  of  this  position,  the  message  proclaimed  also 
that  we  intended  not  to  meddle  with  European  affairs.4  We 
claimed  primacy  on  this  hemisphere;  we  would  protect  our 
weaker  neighbors  from  European  intrusion  or  molestation ;  but 
we  would  leave  the  ^)ld  World  witheut  interference  from  us. 

The  message  was  thoroughly  effective.  England  hailed  it 
as  making  absolutely  secure  her  policy  of  preventing  European 
intervention  in  America ;  and  the  Tsar  agreed  to  move  north 
250  miles,  and  to  accept  the  line  of  54°  40'  for  the  southern 
boundary  of  Russian  Alaska. 

1  This  statement  regarding  the  despotic  character  of  the  powers  united  in 
the  Holy  Alliance  has,  of  course,  little  logical  bearing  upon  any  intervention 
in  America  to-day  by  the  constitutional  monarchies  or  republics  of  Europe. 

2  This  (like  the  final  sentence  quoted  below)  is  the  diplomatic  way  of  say- 
ing that  we  should  be  justified  in  regarding  such  action  as  a  declaration  of 
war. 

3  We  would  not,  then,  object  to  England's  hold  on  Canada,  or  to  any  just 
claim  she  could  show  to  Oregon  at  that  time ;  but  we  would  oppose  any  at- 
tempt on  her  part  to  seize  part  of  Mexico  as  a  war  indemnity,  in  case  she 
should  have  war  with  that  country,  and,  logically,  we  would  interpose  to  pre- 
vent war  itself,  unless,  in  our  opinion,  justifiable. 

4  To  conform  to  this  position,  which  Adams  so  strongly  urged,  Monroe 
modified  certain  expressions  in  the  message,  previously  decided  upon,  which 
might  have  implied  a  possibility  of  interference  by  us  in  the  intervention  of 
the  Holy  Alliance  in  Spain  itself,  and  in  the  Greek  war  for  independence. 


452  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

The  thought  of  this  famous  message  was  not  novel.  Part  of  it  is 
found  in  Washington's  utterances,  and  the  best  of  it  had  been  stated 
repeatedly  by  Jefferson  (§  253).  But  the  practical  application,  in  1823, 
gave  it  a  new  significance.  From  an  academic  question,  it  was  suddenly 
lifted  into  a  question  of  practical  international  politics. 

In  form,  to  be  sure,  the  message  was  merely  an  expression  of  opinion 
by  the  President.  No  other  branch  of  the  government  was  asked  even 
to  express  approval.  But  the  cordial  response  of  the  nation,  on  this 
and  all  subsequent  occasions,  has  made  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  in  truth, 
the  American  Doctrine.  The  only  real  danger  to  its  permanence  is  that 
we  so  act  as  to  inspire  our  weaker  American  brethren  with  fear  that  we 
mean  to  use  its  high  morality  as  a  shield  under  cover  of  which  we  may 
ourselves  plunder  them  at  will.  If  it  ever  becomes  probable  that  the 
1  sheep  dog  wards  off  the  wolves  that  he  himself  may  have  a  fuller  meal, 
his  function  will  not  long  endure.1 

i/  III.     NATIONAL   POLICIES 

278.  Internal  Improvements.  —  The  Western  communities, 
rising  rapidly  to  political  influence,  clamored  for  national  aid 
for  roads  and  canals.  To  the  Cumberland  Road  (§  265)  the 
government  was  already  committed.  Only  twenty  miles  had 
been  fully  completed  at  the  close  of  the  war;  but,  in  1816,  it 
received  an  appropriation  of  $300,000,  followed  by  others  as 
fast  as  they  could  be  used.  By  1820,  with  a  cost  of  a  million 
and  a  half,  it  reached  Wheeling,  on  the  upper  Ohio  waters. 
Thence,  at  a  total  cost  of  nearly  seven  millions2  (carried  by 
thirty-four  appropriations  from  Congress),  it  was  pushed  on  to 
Columbus,  Indianapolis,  and  finally  to  Vandalia  (then  capital 
of  Illinois). 

1  Unhappily,  at  the  moment  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  put  forth,  the  United 
States  was  hoping  eagerly  for  an  opportunity  to  annex  Cuba  (special  report), 
while  the  rising  slave  power  in  our  government  sought  to  keep  that  unfortu- 
nate island  from  becoming  independent,  lest  it  might  free  its  Negroes,  as  the 
other  Spanish-American  States  had  done. 

2  The  cost  east  of  Ohio  exceeded  twice  the  original  "  five  per  cent  fund  " 
from  Ohio  lands.  The  road  was  a  true  national  undertaking,  —  though  the 
fiction  of  merely  "  advancing  funds  "  was  long  maintained,  to  dodge  constitu- 
tional objections. 


453 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS 


From  the  lower  waters  of  the  Potomac  almost  to  the  Mississippi,  cross- 
ing six  States,  this  noble  highway  with  its  white  milestones  spanned  the 
continent  in  a  long  band  with  few  slight  bends.  The  eastern  part  was 
formed  of  crushed  stone  on  a  thoroughly  prepared  foundation  ;  the  west- 


The  National  Koad. 

ern  portion  was  macadamized.  It  bridged  streams  on  magnificent  stone 
arches,  and  cut  through  lines  of  hills  on  easy  grades.  In  1856  (after 
railroads  had  superseded  such  means  of  transit  in  importance)  Congress 
turned  the  road  over  to  the  various  States  in  which  it  lay. 

For  a  time  the  energies  set  free  by  peace  seemed  to  promise 
other  vast  routes  of  communication  at  government  expense,  — 
especially  as  the  difficulty  of  transporting  troops  and  supplies 
over  unimproved  roads  had  just  been  felt  so  keenly.  The 
national  revenues  (with  renewal  of  importations)  rose  at  a  leap 
from  11  to  47  millions.  Madison's  administration  adopted  a 
larger  standing  army  and  navy,  and  the  annual  expenditure 
was  placed  now  at  27  millions ;  but  a  large  surplus  was  rolling 
up.  The  Message  to  Congress  in  December,  1816,  renewed 
Jefferson's  suggestion  of  a  constitutional  amendment  to  permit 
the  use  of  this  surplus  in  a  "  comprehensive  system  of  roads 
and  canals  .  .  .  such  as  will  have  the  effect  of  drawing  more 
closely  together  every  part  of  our  country"  and  of  increasing  "the 
share  of  every  part  in  the  common  stock  of  national  prosperity." 

A  committee,  to  which  this  part  of  the  Message  was  referred, 
ignored  the  suggestion  for  amendment,  and  recommended  the 
immediate  adoption  of  a  plan  for  internal  improvements  copied 
from  Gallatin's  report  of  1808.  Before  this  report  came  up 
for  action,  the  principle  was  settled  in  connection  with  Cal- 
houn's "Bonus  Bill."     An  Act  establishing  a  new  National 


454  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

Bank1  secured  to  the  United  States  a  "bonus"  of  81,500,000 
(for  the  special  privileges  of  the  charter),  besides  certain  shares 
in  future  dividends.  Calhoun's  bill  pledged  these  funds  to  the 
construction  of  roads  and  canals.  To  the  bitter  disappointment 
of  the  Young  Republicans,  on  the  last  day  of  his  term,  Madi- 
son vetoed  the  bill,  in  a  message  which  set  forth  at  length  the 
old  Jeffersonian  doctrine  of  strict  construction.  He  expressed 
warm  sympathy  with  the  purpose  of  the  Act,  but  insisted  upon 
the  necessity  of  the  slow  process  of  constitutional  amendment. 

Calhoun  was  still  in  the  nationalistic  stage  of  his  development,  and  he 
urged  his  bill  on  broad  grounds.  "Let  it  never  be  forgotten  .  .  .  that 
[the  extent  of  our  republic]  exposes  us  to  the  greatest  of  all  calamities, 
next  to  the  loss  of  liberty  itself  (and  even  to  that,  in  its  consequences), — 
disunion.  We  are  greatly  and  rapidly  —  I  was  about  to  say,  fearfully  — 
growing.  This  is  our  pride  and  our  danger;  our  weakness  and  our 
strength.  .  .  .  We  are  under  the  most  imperious  obligation  to  counteract 
every  tendency  to  disunion.  ...  If  we  permit  a  low,  sordid,  selfish  sec- 
tional spirit  to  take  possession  of  this  House,  this  happy  scene  will  vanish. 
We  will  divide  ;  and,  in  consequence,  will  follow  misery  and  despotism." 
Whatever  impeded  intercourse  between  different  parts  of  the  country,  he 
urged  forcefully,  weakened  union.  "Let  us  conquer  space.  .  .  .  The 
mails  and  the  press  are  the  nerves  of  the  body  politic.' '  He  wished  the 
Westerner  to  be  able  to  read  the  news  of  Boston  "  still  moist  from  the 
press." 

Calhoun  sought  for  constitutional  authority  in  the  clauses  of  the  Con- 
stitution relating  to  post  roads  and  to  the  regulation  of  commerce  between 
the  States,  and  even  in  the  general-welfare  clause.  Merely  as  a  matter  of 
logic,  Madison's  veto  overwhelmed  this  reasoning.  To  "establish"  post 
roads,  the  President  argued,  meant  only  to  designate,  not  to  build.  To 
regulate  commerce  against  State  discriminations  did  not  mean  to  create 
commerce  by  national  encouragement.  And  the  general-welfare  argu- 
ment he  had  no  difficulty  in  consigning  to  ignominy  (§  204). 

For  a  time,  national  aid  languished.  President  Monroe,  in 
his  inaugural  and  in  his  one  veto,  took  ground  akin  to  Madi- 

1  The  charter  of  the  First  Bank  expired  in  1811,  and  Republican  opposition 
had  prevented  a  renewal  at  that  time.  But,  in  1816,  the  new  Nationalism  dis- 
regarded former  scruples.  The  bill,  championed  especially  by  Calhoun  and 
Clay,  received  almost  a  solid  vote,  and  was  approved  by  Madison.  This  last 
fact  made  his  veto  of  the  Bonus  Bill  (below)  the  more  surprising. 


AA 

PROTECTIVE   TARIFFS  455 

'  son's.  The  enraged  Congress  retorted  with,  a  remarkable  series 
of  resolutions  condemning  the  President's  position ;  but  it  did 
not  care  to  challenge  more  vetoes,  or  to  make  trial  of  the 
dubious  process  of  amendment. 

The  accession  of  John  Quincy  Adams  marked  a  change  of 
front  by  the  executive.  In  1807  Adams  had  moved  in  Con- 
gress the  resolution  which  called  out  Gallatin's  Report ;  and 
now  his  inaugural  announced  internal  improvements  as  a  car- 
dinal policy.  His  first  Message  urged  Congress  to  multiply 
roads,  endow  a  National  University,  and  establish  an  astro- 
nomical observatory — "a  lighthouse  of  the  skies."  But  Con- 
gress just  then  was  less  enthusiastic.  It  was  broken  into  bitter 
factions,  most  of  them  hostile  to  the  President;  and  many 
States  had  by  this  time  begun  improvements  of  their  own,  and 
did  not  wish  to  help  pay  for  competing  lines  of  communication 
elsewhere.  Still  Adams'  four  years  show  appropriations  for 
such  purposes  totaling  $2,310,000,  —  more  than  three  times 
the  amount  for  Monroe's  eight  years. 
^^279.  Protective  Tariffs. — From  1807  to  1815  the  embargo 
u  and  the  war  had  prevented  the  importation  of  European  manu- 
factures. This  condition  afforded  an  artificial  "protection  "  for 
home  manufactures.  We  had  to  use  up  our  own  raw  cotton, 
wool,  and  iron,  or  let  them  go  unused;  and  we  had  to  supply 
our  own  clothing,  fabrics,  tools,  and  machinery,  or  do  without. 

The  new  demand  was  met  mainly  in  New  England,  where 
much  capital  and  labor,  formerly  engaged  in  shipping,  was 
temporarily  unemployed.  In  1807  New  England  cotton  mills 
had  only  8000  spindles  in  use  (§  248) ;  in  1809  the  number 
was  80,000  ;  and,  by  the  close  of  the  war,  500,000,  employing 
100,000  workers.  Woolen  and  iron  manufactures  had  not 
grown  quite  so  rapidly ;  but  they  also  were  well  under  way. 
The  total  capital  invested  was  about  a  hundred  million  dollars, 
—  two  fifths  of  it  in  the  cotton  industry. 

Plainly,  this  manufacturing  industry,  developed  by  unnatural 
conditions,  could  not  sustain  itself  against  restored  competition. 
We  could  let  it  die,  and  permit  the  capital  and  labor  to  find 


Ifao  --/**•*-    fat 


456  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

their  way  back  into  other  industries  (after  some  period  of  greater 
or  less  demoralization);  or  we  could  now  "protect"  it  from 
foreign  competition  by  law.  To  do  this,  we  would  place  high 
tariffs  on  foreign  goods  such  as  we  manufactured. 

If  we  adopted  this  policy  of  "protection,"  we  should  con- 
tinue to  pay  more  for  the  articles  than  if  we  let  them  come  in, 
untaxed,  from  the  Old  World,  where  their  cost  was  lower. 
But,  it  was  urged,  we  should  have  more  diversified  industries, 
larger  city  populations,  and  so  more  of  a  home  market  for  our 
raw  materials  and  for  foodstuffs,  —  and,  after  a  time,  even 
cheaper  manufactures  (when  we  should  come  to  do  the  work 
efficiently  and  cheaply),  because  of  the  absence  of  ocean  freights. 

The  question  of  "protection"  was  not  new.  Earlier  tariffs  had 
been  framed  to  carry  "incidental  protection"  (§  219)  •  and  Hamilton's 
famous  Beport  on  Manufactures  had  argued  for  a  protective  tariff.  But 
all  such  requests  had  been  for  taxation  in  order  to  create  manufactures. 
It  was  more  effective  to  call  upon  Congress  to  preserve  industries  into  which 
a  national  war  had  driven  citizens.  Moreover,  the  war  had  given  special 
point  to  Calhoun's  patriotic  argument  that  economic  independence  xoas 
essential  to  real  political  independence. 

Against  the  eloquence  of  Calhoun  and  Clay,  John  Randolph  raised  his 
voice  in  almost  solitary  protest,  in  behalf  of  the  "consumer."  With 
keen  insight,  he  warned  the  agricultural  masses  that  they  were  to  pay 
the  bills,  and  that,  in  the  discussion  of  future  rates,  they  would  never  be 
able  to  make  their  needs  and  opinions  felt  in  Congress  as  could  the  small 
body  of  interested  and  influential  capitalists.  "Alert,  vigilant,  enter- 
prising, active,  the  manufacturing  interests  are  collected  .  .  .  ready  to 
associate  at  a  moment's  notice  for  any  purpose  of  general  interest  to  their 
body.  .  .  .  Nay,  they  are  always  assembled.  They  are  always  on  the 
Rialto  ;  and  Shylock  and  Antonio  meet  every  day,  as  friends,  and  com- 
pare notes.  And  they  possess,  in  trick  and  intelligence,  what,  in  the 
goodness  of  God  to  them,  the  others  can  never  have." 

The  sentiment  for  protection  was  victorious;  and,  against 
steadily  increasing  opposition,  it  carried  three  great  tariff  bills 
with  steadily  increasing  rates. 

The  Tariff  of  1816  was  enacted  by  a  tivo-thirds  vote  as  an 
avowed  protective  measure.  Revenue  had  become  the  incident. 
Imported  cottons  and  woolens  were  taxed  twenty-five  per  cent, 


PROTECTIVE   TARIFFS  457 

and  manufactured  iron  slightly  more.  But  these  rates  proved 
too  low  for  their  purpose.  English  warehouses  were  horribly 
overstocked  with  the  accumulations  of  the  years  during  which 
the  markets  of  the  world  had  been  closed  to  them ;  and  now 
these  goods  were  dumped  upon  America  at  sacrifice  prices. 
Moreover,  in  1819,  came  the  first  world-wide  industrial  depres- 
sion. In  America,  the  manufacturing  interests  ascribed  this 
to  insufficient  "  protection,"  and  began  to  clamor  for  more. 

After  the  first  three  years,  the  rate  was  to  be  twenty  per  cent,  and  the 
law  is  often  called  a  twenty  per  cent  tariff ;  but  that  rate  never  went  into 
effect.     A  law  of  1818  made  permanent  the  twenty-five  per  cent  rate. 

Moreover,  on  cheap  grades  of  cloth  the  rate  was  really  much  higher, 
disguised  by  the  device  of  a  "  minimum-price  "  clause.  That  is,  the  bill 
provided  that,  for  purposes  of  taxation,  no  cotton  cloth  should  be  valued 
at  less  than  25  cents  a  yard.  If  the  cloth  was  really  worth  only  13  cents, 
the  tariff  was  still  Q\  cents,  or,  in  reality,  fifty  per  cent.  This  effective 
device  for  placing  the  chief  tariff  burden  upon  the  poorest  classes  has 
been  much  practiced  in  later  tariffs. 

The  American  causes  for  the  depression  of  1819  resembled  those  of 
later  "crises."  (1)  The  promise  of  the  tariff  itself  had  caused  over-in- 
vestment in  manufactures  in  the  East ;  and  (2)'  in  the  West  there  had 
been  reckless  over-investment  in  public  lands  by  thousands  of  poor  immi- 
grants who  were  unduly  allured  by  the  "  credit  system  "  of  sale  for  pub- 
lic lands  (§§  263,  272,  6).  A  third  cause,  which  intensified  the  evil,  was 
the  recent  multiplication  of  "  wild-cat' '  State  banks  (after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  first  National  Bank  in  1811),  which  had  loaned  money  in  ex- 
travagant amounts  for  both  forms  of  investment  mentioned,  and  for  more 
questionable  speculation.  When  at  length  these  banks  found  themselves 
forced  to  begin  to  call  in  their  loans,  or  to  close  their  doors,  they  spread 
panic  and  confusion  throughout  society. 

b.  The  Tariff  of  1824  found  its  leading  champion  in  Clay, 
who  now  glorified  the  protective  policy  with  the  name,  the 
American  System.  The  chief  opposition  in  debate  came  from 
Webster,  who  represented  a  commercial  district  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  who  took  his  stand  upon  absolute  free-trade  policy.1 


1  Webster  followed  the  teachings  of  all  "  the  Fathers,"  except  Hamilton. 
The  Revolution,  in  no  small  degree,  was  fought  for  the  right  to  trade  at  will 


458 


A  NEW  AMERICANISM,    1815-1829 


In  general,  New  England,  wavering  between  manufactures 
and  a  return  to  its  old  shipping  interests,  was  divided.  The 
South  had  been  almost  solid  for  protection  in  1816,  but  now 
it  was  solid  in  opposition,  loudly  denying  its  constitutionality.1 
The  bill  passed  by  bare  majorities,  through  the  union  of  the  manu- 


with  the  world.  This  fact  gave  a  free-trade  tone  to  our  thought  for  a  gen- 
eration. By  1815,  however,  even  Jefferson  and  Madison  had  modified  their 
former  views,  and  for  a  time  inclined  to  protection. 

1  The  power  to  tax,  it  was  argued,  was  given,  plainly,  only  to  raise  reve- 
nue, not  to  build  up  manufactures  in  one  part  of  the  country  by  taxing  other 


PROTECTIVE   TARIFFS 


459 


facturing  Middle  States  and  the  agricultural  West,1  which  hoped 
to  see  a  home  market  for  its  raw  materials.     The  bill  repre- 


^^^^PST^q^ 


parts.  Moreover,  it  was  pointed  out  that  a  proposal  to  give  Congress  such 
power  was  defeated  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention.  Protectionists  replied 
that  they  based  their  constitutional  right  upon  the  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce, not  on  the  power  to  tax. 

1  John  Randolph's  biting  wit  found  entertainment  in  this  situation :  "  The 
merchants  and  manufacturers  of  Massachusetts  .  .  .  repel  this  bill,  whilst 
men  in  hunting-shirts,  with  deer-skin  leggings  and  moccasins  .  .  .  want  pro- 
tection for  manufactures." 


460  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

sented  an  increase  to  about  33  per  cent ;  and,  under  this  stimulus, 
the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  trebled  in  three  years. 

c.  Tariff  of  1828.  Clamor  continued  for  still  higher  pro- 
tection, and  in  four  years  Congress  enacted  the  "Tariff  of 
Abominations."  The  measure  was  engineered  largely  by  men 
who  planned  to  make  Jackson  President,  and  none  of  the 
other  political  leaders  dared  oppose  it  on  the  eve  of  a  presi- 
dential campaign.  Said  John  Eandolph,  "  This  bill  encour- 
ages manufactures  of  no  sort  but  the  manufacture  of  a  Presi- 
dent." Webster  now  changed  sides,  frankly  assigning  as  his 
reason  that  Massachusetts  had  accepted  protection  as  a  settled 
national  policy,  and  had  invested  her  capital  in  manufactures 
accordingly.  New  England  and  the  South  had  exchanged  posi- 
tions since  the  controversy  of  18 16.1 

Opponents  succeeded  in  making  the  bill  a  hotch-potch,  in 
hope  its  authors  would  themselves  refuse  to  swallow  it,  but  in 
vain.  The  law  raised  the  average  of  duties  on  taxed  articles 
to  Jf9  per  cent,  —  far  the  highest  point  touched  until  the  "  war- 
tariffs"  of  the  sixties.  It  gave  rise  to  a  new  nullification 
movement  (§  304  ff.).2 

v  280.  Judicial  Decisions  and  Nationality.  —  The  period  (1816- 
1828)  is  famous  for  a  series  of  great  decisions  by  the  Supreme 
Court  confirming  and  extending  the  supremacy  of  the  national 
government.  In  particular,  these  decisions  established  (1)  the 
authority  of  the  Federal  courts  to  declare  void  State  laics  in 
conflict  with  a  national  law,  or  treaty,  or  the  Constitution ; 


1  The  South  found  that  slavery  shut  her  out  from  manufacturing  industry, 
and  her  agricultural  exports  could  not  he  sold  to  advantage  unless  the  United 
States  enjoyed  a  large  and  free  commerce  with  other  nations.  The  tariff 
threatened  to  shut  off  such  trade. 

2  Exercise.  —  Distinguish  between  free  trade  and  protection.  What  is  a 
revenue  tariff  ?  How  will  the  articles  taxed  in  such  a  tariff  differ  from  those 
taxed  in  a  "protective  tariff"  ?  If  a  large  revenue  is  wanted,  will  it  he 
secured  more  probably  from  a  high  tax  on  luxuries  or  a  low  tax  on  necessi- 
ties ?  Would  people  pay  willingly  a  direct  tax  equivalent  to  the  indirect 
tax  they  pay  on  their  morning  coffee  ?  In  a  tax  on  necessities,  do  poor  or 
rich  pay  most  in  proportion  to  their  wealth  ? 


THE  JUDICIARY 


461 


(2)  the  means  to  enforce  this  authority  by  receiving  appeals 
from  State  courts  even  when  the  State  itself  was  a  party;  (3)  a 
restriction  upon  State  legislatures  by  an  extension  of  the  term 


"contract" ;  and  (4)  an  extension  of  the  power  of  Congress 
under  the  doctrine  of  "  implied  powers,"  especially  in  acqui- 
sition of  territory,  creating  corporations,  and  controlling  rivers 
and  other  means  of  interstate  commerce.  Some  details  follow, 
for  reading  in  class. 


4L 


462  A  NEW  AMERICANISM,   1815-1829 

a.  Martin  v.  Hunter'' s  Lessee  {1816).  Virginia  had  refused  to  permit 
an  appearTronTher  highest!5ourTto  the  national  Supreme  Court,  charging 
that  the  twenty-fifth  section  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  providing  for 
such  appeals  (§  217),  was  unconstitutional.  The  Supreme  Court  held  the 
law  constitutional,  declaring  the  States  and  their  legislatures  bound_by__. 

the  parangO11"*  authority  nf  t.hp.  Nation 

b.  Cohens  v.  Virginia  {1821).  Virginia,  in  her  own  courts,  had 
secured  judgment  against  a  certain  Cohens.  Cohens  claimed  that  he  had 
been  denied  privileges  due  him  under  the  national  Constitution,  and  that 
the  judgment,  therefore,  was  erroneous ;  and  he  applied  to  the  Supreme 
Court  for  a  writ  of  error,  to  compel  the  Virginia  court  to  permit  an 
appeal.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  and  the  Court  issued  the  writ,  heard  the 
appeal,  and  reversed  the  State  court,  despite  the  eleventh  amendment, 
holding  that,  the  State  having  begun  the  suit,  it  remained,  in  reality  a — 
suit  by  the  State  against  an  individual,  not  by  an  individual  against  a 
State  (§  218),  and  otherwise  confirming  the  right  of  appeals  from  State 
Courts. 

The  two  decisions  (a  and  b,  reinforced,  too,  by  others  in  the  same 
period)  established  beyond  dispute  the  appellate  power  of  the  Federal 
Court  from  State  Courts  in  any  case  M  where  the  Constitution,  laws,  or 
treaties  of  the  United  States  are  drawn  in  question."  x  In  1831,  indeed, 
an  attempt  was  made  in  Congress  to  repeal  the  section  of  the  Judiciary 
Act  conferring  this  appellate  power,  but  the  bill  mustered  less  than  a 
fourth  of  the  votes. 

C    <(cS  In  the  Dar£n}puth  Collie,  case  (1819),  the  Court  declared  that 

"tate  legislatures  could  not  repeal  charterer  granted  by  previous  legisla- 

es,  since  such  grants  were  "contracts."     The  decision  was  secured, 

is  generally  held  now,  not  wholly  on  legal  reasoning,  but  partly  by  the 

mpathy  of  the  Court  for  the  noble  little  college,  by  Daniel  Webster's 
eloquence  in  its  behalf,  and  by  great  outside  pressure.     Cf.  §  208,  c. 

@  Gibbons  y.  Ogden  (1824).  New  York  had  rewarded  Fulton  and 
Livingstone  (§  264)  with  a  grant  of  a  monopoly  of  the  navigation  of  the 
Hudson  by  steam  vessels  for  a  period  of  years.  The  Supreme  Court  de 
clared  the  grant  void,  as  conflicting  with  the  power  of  the  United  States 
to  regulate  commerce.  Thus  "commerce"  in  the  Constitution,  was 
widened  from  the  mere  exchange  of  goods  to  transportation  by  water,  — 
and  of  course  by  land,  and,  in  time,  to  communication  by  telegraph. 

1  Observe,  in  1893  the  Supreme  Court  had  declared  imconstitutional  an- 
other section  of  this  same  law  of  1789,  —  and  a  section  giving  power  to  itself. 
Now  it  was  in  good  position,  after  such  a  precedent,  to  declare  constitutional 
a  section  of  that  law  giving  to  it  a  more  important  power= 


:? 


THE  JUDICIARY  463 

g)  McCulloch  v.  Maryland  {1819).  A  branch  of  the  National  Bank 
had  been  established  in  Maryland.  The  State  banks  were  incensed,  and 
the  legislature  tried  to  drive  out  the  National  Bank  by  taxing  it  ruinously. 
McCulloch,  officer  of  the  Bank,  resisted  the  tax.  The  Maryland  courts 
upheld  it,  denying  the  right  of  Congress  to  charter  a  Bank,  since  no  such 
power  was  "enumerated"  in  the  Constitution;  but,  on  writ  of  error, 
(&  above),  the  national  Supreme  Court  (1)  held  the  National  law  constitu- 
tional under  the  doctrine~oJ 7mp7?^r"poMJe?s7'and  (2)  declared  the  State 
law  void  because  conflicting  with  a  National  law.2  It  was  in  strengthen- 
ing his  position  for  this  argument  that  Marshall  revived  the  idea  that 
"The  people  of  the  United  States^"  (in  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution) 
meant  one  consolidated  people.     Cf.  §  211. 

.   (  ^ 

IV.    BREAK-UP   OF  THE   ERA 

281.  Party  replaced  by  Faction.  —  The  Federalists  had  been 
galvanized  into  life  by  the  embargo  and  the  war  (§  267,  note) ; 
but  in  1816  they  cast  only  35  electoral  votes,  none  in  1820,  and 
in  1824  they  made  no  nominations.  The  old  party  lines  had 
disappeared  practically  by  1820.     In  consequence,  the  period 

1  Congress  and  President  had  acted  previously,  at  times,  on  this  doctrine; 
but  this  was  the  first  judicial  decision  affirming  the  constitutionality  of  stich 
action.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  found  the  power  to  charter  a  bank  a  "  neces- 
sary and  proper"  power  in  connection  with  the  power  to  raise  money  and  use 
it.  The  language  defining  "  necessary  and  proper,"  and  explaining  "  implied 
powers,"  is  notable.  "  Let  the  end  be  legitimate,  let  it  be  within  the  scope 
of  the  Constitution,  —  and  all  means  which  are  appropriate,  which  are  plainly 
adapted  to  the  end,  and  which  are  not  prohibited,  but  consist  with  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  are  constitutional"  (cf.  §§  204,  b,  207,  b,  217, 
222,  close). 

A  later  decision  (Anderson  v.  Dunn,  1824)  used  even  stronger  language : 
"  There  is  not  in  the  whole  of  that  admirable  instrument  a  grant  of  powers 
which  does  not  draw  after  it  others,  not  expressed  hut  vital  .  .  .  not  .  .  . 
independent,  but  auxiliary  and  subordinate.  The  idea  is  Utopian  that  govern- 
ment can  exist  without  leaving  the  exercise  of  discretion  somewhere." 

2  In  the  %ases  previously  noticed,  a  State  law  had  been  voided  only  when 
in  conflict  with  the  Constitution.  Opposition  to  the  Bank  appeared  also  in 
Kentucky  and  Ohio,  and  the  Supreme  Court  had  other  opportunities  in  the 
next  few  years  (of  which  it  took  advantage)  to  repeat  and  reinforce  this  doc- 
trine. The  student  should  read  the  striking  story  of  the  Ohio  case  in  McMaster, 
IV,  498  ff.  Review,  also,  §  207,  a.  During  this  period  the  Court  declared  void 
laws  of  eleven  of  the  twenty-four  States. 


464  REACTION  AGAINST  NATIONALISM 

has  been  miscalled  an  "  Era  of  Good  Feeling."  In  reality,  it 
became  an  era  of  exceeding  bad  feeling  among  factions  actuated 
by  personal  aims  rather  than  by  political  principles. 

This  became  apparent  in  the  campaign  of  1824.  Crawford 
of  Georgia  was  nominated  for  the  presidency  by  a  Congressional 
caucus  (§  227  and  note),  which,  however,  was  attended  by  less 
than  a  third  of  the  members.  Legislatures  in  the  New  Eng- 
land States  nominated  John  Quincy  Adams ;  and  in  like  fash- 
ion, Clay  was  nominated  by  Kentucky  and  Missouri,  and 
Andrew  Jackson  by  Tennessee  and  Pennsylvania.  Jackson's 
candidacy  was  a  surprise  and  an  offense  to  the  other  statesmen 
of  the  period.  He  was  a  "military  hero,"  and,  to  their  eyes 
at  that  time,  nothing  more.1  The  campaign  was  marked  by 
bitter  personalities.  Adams,  whose  forbidding  manners  kept 
him  aloof  from  the  multitude,  was  derided  as  an  aristocrat, 
while  Jackson  was  applauded  as  a  "man  of  the  people." 
Jackson  had  99  votes;  Adams,  84;  Crawford,  41;  Clay,  37. 
Thus  (twelfth  amendment)  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
to  choose  between  the  three  highest,  and  Adams  became  Presi- 
dent, through  votes  thrown  to  him  by  Clay.  Adams  afterward 
appointed  Clay  his  Secretary  of  State ;  and  friends  of  Jackson 
declared  that  the  "  will  of  the  people  "  had  been  thwarted  by 
a  "corrupt  coalition  between  Puritan  and  blackleg."2 

Adams  was  thwarted  at  every  turn  throughout  his  four 
years,  and  the  Jackson  men  began  at  once  the  campaign  for 
the  next  election.  New  party  lines  began  to  appear.  Sup- 
porters of  Adams  and  Clay,  standing  for  internal  improve- 
ments and  protection,  took  the  name  of  National  Republicans, 
' 

1  Never  before  had  a  man  been  a  candidate  for  that  office  without  long  and 
distinguished  service  behind  him.  Moreover,  a  sort  of  succession  had  been 
established.  Until  after  the  twelfth  amendment  the  Vice  President  had  been 
considered  the  natural  heir;  after  that  time,  the  Secretary  of  State.  Madi- 
son had  succeeded  Jefferson  ;  Monroe,  Madison;  Adams  was  next  in  line. 

2 It  was  thought,  unjustly,  that  Adams  and  Clay  had  bargained.  The 
quoted  phrase  was  John  Randolph's.  Clay  challenged  Randolph,  and  a  duel 
was  fought  without  injury  to  any  one.  Honor  thus  appeased,  pleasant  social 
relations  were  restored  between  the  two, 


POLITICAL  FACTIONS  465 

to  signify  their  centralizing  tendencies;  while  Jackson  men 
emphasized  their  claim  to  a  truer  democracy  by  the  name 
Democratic  Republicans,  or,  a  little  later,  Democrats. 

282.  Reaction  against  Nationalism.  —  In  the  years  just  fol- 
lowing the  War  of  1812,  Nationalism  had  seemed  triumphant 
in  every  part  of  the  Union.  But  so  vital  a  change  could  not 
become  permanent  at  a  stroke ;  and  by  1820  reaction  appeared, 
(1)  in  intensified  sectionalism  and  (2)  in  a  revival  of  State 
sovereignty.  These  elements  of  disunion  were  now  most  active 
in  the  South;  and  the  two  main  causes  were  (1)  dread  of 
economic  loss  through  protective  tariffs,  and  (2)  fear  for  the 
institution  of  slavery. 

After  1820,  the  tendency  to  State  sovereignty  manifested  itself  also  in 
widespread  denunciation  of  the  great  nationalistic  decisions  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  (§280).  Southern  political  writers,  in  particular,  piled 
pamphlet  upon  pamphlet  of  strenuous  criticism  ;  and  nearly  half  the  State 
governments  protested  or  resisted  some  judicial  decree.  Ohio  collected 
by  force  an  unconstitutional  tax  from  the  National  Bank,  and  held  it  six 
years  (§  280,  e,  note).  Virginia  made  formal  protest  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Court  in  Cohens  v.  Virginia.  And  Georgia  nullified  a  treaty  made 
by  the  Federal  government  with  the  Southern  Indians  within  her  borders, 
and  threatened  war  if  the  treaty  (backed  by  Supreme  Court  decisions) 
were  enforced.1 

Assertion  of  State  sovereignty  has  always  been  a  refuge  for  a  minor- 
ity feeling  itself  aggrieved  by  a  national  policy.  The  effect  of  the  pro- 
tective tariffs  in  calling  out  this  sort  of  response  in  the  South  (already 
referred  to)  will  be  treated  later  (§  304  ff.).  The  development  of  sec- 
tionalism was  hastened  by  a  contest  over  slavery  (§  283). 

283.  The  Missouri  Compromise.  —  From  the  first,  a  careful 
balance  had  been  maintained  between  free  and  slave   States 


1 "  Georgia  and  State  sovereignty  "  should  be  a  subject  for  a  special  report, 
though  the  teacher  may  prefer  to  defer  it  until  it  may  include  the  continu- 
ation in  Jackson's  period.  On  the  whole  subject  of  State  hostility  to  the 
Federal  judiciary,  see  Turner's  New  West,  299-305,  or,  more  fully,  McMaster, 
V,  412  ff .  Details  for  Georgia  are  given  in  Dr.  Phillipps'  article  in  the  Amer- 
ican Historical  Association  Reports  for  1901,  vol.  II. 


466 


REACTION  AGAINST  NATIONALISM 


in  admitting  new  commonwealths.  Vermont  offset  Kentucky ; 
Ohio,  Tennessee  (§  224).  Louisiana  (1812)  made  the  number 
of  free  and  slave  States  just  equal ;  but  the  free  States  grew 


so  much  faster  in  population  that  by  1820  (under  the  three- 
fifths  rule)  they  had  the  larger  number  of  representatives  in 
the  lower  -  House  of  Congress  by  a  fourth.  The  South  grew 
increasingly  sensitive  over  this  situation;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  tide  of  antislavery  feeling  was  rising  in  the  North. 
Missouri  had  been  settled  mainly  through  Kentucky,  with 


STATE   SOVEREIGNTY  AND   SECTIONALISM     467 


many  slaveholders  among  its  people.  In  1819  a  bill  for  its 
admission  to  the  Union  came  before  Congress.  The  proposed 
State  lay  north  of  the  line  of  the  Ohio,  which,  with  Mason  and 
Dixon's   line,  divided  free   and   slave   territory  east   of   the 


Mississippi.  The  North  ronsed  itself  to  insist  on  maintaining 
that  same  line  west  of  the  river,  -and  meetings  and  legislative 
resolutions  protested  against  admission  with  slavery.  The 
South  protested  quite  as  vehemently  against  any  restriction 
upon  the  wishes  and  rights  of  the  Missouri  people.  The 
House  of  Representatives,  by  a  majority  of  one  vote,  added 


468 


REACTION  AGAINST  NATIONALISM 


an  amendment  to  the  bill,  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  proposed 
State.  The  Senate  struck  out  this  "  Tallmadge  amendment," 1 
and  the  bill  failed  for  that  session.  No  one  yet  denied  the 
constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  forbid  or  regulate  slavery 


in  the  Territories,  but  many  Northerners,  even,  denied  the 
right  of  Congress  to  impose  restrictions  upon  a  new  State  —  so 
as  to  make  it  less  "  sovereign  "  than  older  States. 

At   the   next   session   of   Congress,  the   Maine   district   of 


1  Introduced  by  James  Tallmadge  of  New  York. 


STATE   SOVEREIGNTY  AND  SECTIONALISM     469 

Massachusetts  was  also  an  applicant  for  admission  as  a  new 
State.  The  House  passed  both  bills,  restoring  the  Tallmadge 
amendment  for  Missouri.  The  Senate  put  the  two  bills  into 
one  (in  order  to  coerce  the  North),  and  substituted  for  the  Tall- 
madge prohibition  of  slavery  the  Missouri  Compromise  o/1820. 
Missouri  was  to  be  admitted,  with  permission  to  establish 
slavery,  but  no  other  slave  State  should  be  formed  out  of  exist- 
ing national  domain  north  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Mis- 
souri {36°  SO^jT 

After  a  sharp  struggle,  the  House  accepted  this  compromise.  But 
when  Missouri  presented  its  constitution  for  approval,  it  was  found  to 
prohibit  the  immigration  of  free  Negroes.  This  was  a  denial  to  citizens 
of  other  States  rights  guaranteed  in  the  Constitution  (Art.  IV,  sec.  1). 
Again  Congress  was  in  a  furor.  But  Henry  Clay  arranged  a  minor  com- 
promise, by  which  the  objectionable  provision  was  modified. 

[The  greater  part  of  the  Louisiayia  Purchase  was  saved  for 
Freedom,  and  the  policy  of  the  Northwest  Ordinance  was  reas- 
serted.) But  sectional  passions  had  been  aroused,  never  again 
to  sleep  until  after  the  Civil  War.  Soon  Southern  dissatisfac- 
tion was  fanned  to  flame  by  the  "  tariff  of  abominations."  But 
at  this  critical  moment  the  election  of  Jackson  (1828)  gave 
hope  of  relief.  Jackson  received  every  electoral  vote  south 
of  the  Potomac  and  west  of  the  Appalachians,  besides  those 
of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.  He  was  a  Southerner  by 
birth,  arid  a  citizen  of  the  Southwest.  He  was  a  violent  pro- 
slavery  man,  and  he  was  supposed  to  have  State  sovereignty 
sympathies. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  closing  chapters  in  Babcock's  Bise  of 
American  Nationality  (186-308)  and  Turner's  Bise  of  the  New  West 
present  the  story  of  the  period  in  the  "American  Nation"  series.  The 
closing  volume  of  Henry  Adams'  great  History  is  admirable  for  the  first 
part  of  the  period.  McMaster  is  referred  to  frequently  in  the  footnotes 
above,  but,  as  usual,  is  too  voluminous  for  general  reference,  though 
exceedingly  graphic  for  this  period.  Excellent  biographies  (titles  in 
Appendix)  of  Clay,  Calhoun,  Adams,  and  Webster  should  be  read  so  far 
as  they  pertain  to  this  period. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

A  NEW  DEMOCRACY,   1830-1850 

I.   THE   NEW   SOCIETY 

j  A.    The  New  West 

\ 
284.    The  Revolution  of   1828,  marked  by  the  election  of  Andrew 

Jackson,  was  as  significant  as  was  that  of  1800.  A  new  generation  had 
come  upon  the  stage,  and,  indeed,  upon  a  new  stage.  Jackson's  victory 
was  the  victory  of  the  new  West  over  the  old  East,  and,  in  the  East 
itself,  the  victory  of  a  newly  enfranchised  and  awakened  labor  class 
over  the  classes  which  had  formerly  dominated  society  and  politics.  It 
was  the  victory  of  a  new  radical  democracy,  untrained,  administered  by 
"  men  of  the  people,"  over  the  moderate  democracy  of  Jefferson,  admin- 
istered by  trained,  leisured,  and  cultured  "gentlemen."  Once  more  we 
pause  to  survey  a  new  United  States,  —  that  of  the  years  1830-1850. 

Population  was  still  mainly  of  English  stock,  descended  from  pre- 
Revolutionary  settlers  (§§  in,  272  a).  Between  1800  and  1830  it  had 
increased  from  five  and  one  third  to  thirteen  millions,  with  a  third, 
instead  of  a  twentieth,  west  of  the  mountains.  The  total  area  and  the 
"settled  area"  had  each  been  doubled.  Thirty-two  cities  (almost  all 
in  the  North  Atlantic  section)  had  each  a  population  of  over  eight  thou- 
sand ;  and  this  "  urban  "  population  had  begun  to  gain  upon  the  rural, 
though  it  had  risen,  so  far,  only  from  five  per  cent  of  the  whole  to  seven. 
Two  million  of  the  people  were  slaves  and  a  third  of  a  million  more 
were  free  Negroes  —  about  half  this  last  class  in  the  North. 

The  large  cities  in  1830  were  NjjwJ^oj-k  (203,000),  Philadelphia 
(167,000),  Baltimore  (80,000),  Boston  (61,000),  and  New  Orleans,  with 
its  old  population  of  about  46,000.  The  Southern  cities  were  falling 
behind,  relatively  ;  and  the  West  had  not  begun  to  grow  towns  in  any 
number.  Cincinnati  was  the  only  city  of  over  three  thousand  people  in 
the  oldest  State  in  the  Northwest. 

470 


THE  NEW  WEST  471 

285.    The  three  sections  require  brief  description. 

a.  The  North-Atlantic  section,  though  still  largely  agricultural 
and  commercial,  had  become  also  a  manufacturing  district.  New 
England  utilized  the  water  power  of  her  streams,  by  dams,  for 
her  cotton,  woolen,  and  paper  mills,  —  building  up  a  new  line 
of  towns  (the  Fall  line)  at  Lowell,  Manchester,  Lawrence, 
Holyoke,  Fall  River,  etc.;  while  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey, 
and  New  York  accomplished  even  greater  results  in  the  same 
direction  by  the  use  of  "  stone  coal "  (anthracite). 

The  New  England  factory  towns  were  at  first  made  up  largely  of  the 
old  farming  population,  moved  in  from  the  country.  At  Lowell,  for  in- 
stance, the  employees  in  the  cotton  mills  were  almost  exclusively  farmers' 
daughters,  who,  after  working  fourteen  hours  a  day  in  a  factory,  had 
still  (for  one  generation)  physical  and  intellectual  energy  for  literary 
clubs  and  social  activities.1  In  the  thirties,  however,  these  workers  began 
to  be  replaced  by  immigrants  fresh  from  Ireland.  Then  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  New  England  turned  their  faces  westward.  Especially  after 
1840  did  they  colonize  the  northern  portions  of  Indiana  and  Illinois, 
making,  also,  in  the  early  day,  the  chief  element  in  the  frontier  common- 
wealths of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota. 

b.  The  South  had  become  stationary  in  politics  and  in- 
dustry, and  it  grew  only  by  slow  degrees  in  population.  The 
retarding  influence  of  slavery  upon  economic  development 
was  plain  to  unprejudiced  observers;  but  existing  industries 
(tobacco  and  cotton)  were  based  chiefly  on  that  institution, 
and  the  South  had  begun  to  cherish  it  more  blindly  than  in 

1  Lucy  Larcom's  A  Nevj  England  Girlhood  pictures  this  society.  I  have 
also  heard  it  described  vividly  by  a  valued  friend,  an  old  lady  of  strong- char- 
acter and  fine  culture,  and  of  valued  service  to  public  education  in  a  progres- 
sive State,  who  was  herself  a  Lowell  factory  girl  in  the  forties.  At  4 :30  a.m. 
the  bell  summoned  the  workers  from  their  beds.  At  five  they  must  be  within 
the  mills,  and  the  gates  were  closed.  With  a  half  hour  later,  for  breakfast, 
and  forty-five  minutes  for  "dinner,"  the  labor  continued  till  7  p.m.  The 
manufacturing  company  provided  plain  lodgings  and  arrangements  for  cheap 
board  at  $1.50  per  week.  Skillful  workers  (paid  by  the  piece)  might  earn  that 
and  possibly  as  much  more.  Churches  and  lectures  and  all  the  town's  social 
activities  arranged  their  meetings  late  enough  in  the  evening  to  be  attended 
by  these  eager  working  girls.  The  girls  wrote,  edited,  and  published  a  peri- 
odical of  considerable  literary  merit. 


472  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

earlier  years.     Society  was  stratified  as  it  no  longer  was  in 
other  parts  of  the  country. 

(1)  At  the  top  were  some  six  thousand  families  (25,000  or  30,000  peo- 
ple) of  large  planters,  with  numerous  slaves,  —  sometimes  a  thousand  to 
one  owner.  This  aristocracy  furnished  the  South's  representation  in  the 
National  government  and  almost  all  the  higher  State  officials.  (2)  A 
hundred  and  thirty  thousand  families  (650,000  people.)  owned  perhaps 
from  one  to  four  slaves  each.  These  small  slaveholders,  with  about  as 
many  more  non-slaveholding  but  well-to-do  farmers,  made  up  the  yeo- 
manry of  the  South,  from  whom  were  to  come  her  famous  soldiery.  This 
class  often  differed  from  the  aristocracy  in  political  motives  and  aims  ; 
but  it  lacked  leaders,  and  it  had  no  organization  from  State  to  State. 
(3)  The  "poor  whites"  without  other  property  than  a  miserable  cabin 
and  a  rough  clearing,  outnumbered  the  yeomanry  two  to  one.1  This  class 
made  the  political  following  of  the  rich  planters.  (4)  The  180,000  free 
Negroes  were  subject  to  oppressive  legal  restrictions,  and  had,  of  course, 
no  political  rights.  They  could  not  serve  on  juries ;  nor  were  they 
allowed  to  move  from  place  to  place  at  will,  or  to  receive  any  education. 

(c)  Tlie  New  West  of  the  Mississippi  valley  gave  two  more 
States  to  the  Union  in  the  decade  following  1830,  and  doubled 
its  population  7— while  the  country  as  a  whole  added  only  a 
third.  Ohio  added  70  per  cent  ;  Indiana,  100  per  cent ;  Illi- 
nois trebled  in  numbers ;  and  Michigan  multiplied  her  32,000 
people  by  seven.2 

The  student  must  beware  of  classing  the  Mississippi  of  1830  as 
M  Southern,"  or  Illinois  as  "  Northern."  Those  terms  then  applied,  in 
society  and  politics,  only  to  the  divisions  of  the  Atlantic  States.  The 
country  had  three  sections,  —  North,  South,  and  West. 

During  the  next  twenty  years,  however,  the  difference  between  the  two 
systems  of  labor,  free  and  slave,  in  its  northern  and  southern  portions 
split  the  West  also  into  two  sections,  —  which  then  merged  with  the 
corresponding  Atlantic  sections.  In  1850  there  were  only  two  sections 
to  the  Union,  —  a  North  and  a  South. 

1  These  two  classes  are  sometimes  confused. 

2  Arkansas  was  admitted  in  1836,  and  Michigan  in  1837.  "What  is  indicated 
by  the  varying  increase  in  the  four  States  named  ?  The  student  should  here 
review,  for  western  society  and  growth,  §§  166,  185,  263,  and  especially  272, 
273, 


THE  NEW  WEST  473 

The  Westerners  of  1830  were  developing  a  new  American 
type — to  remain  the  dominant  one  for  two  generations:  tall, 
gannt  men,  adventurous  and  resolute,  of  masterful  temper, 
daunted  by  no  emergency.  For  a  time,  like  their  Southern 
ancestry,  they  lacked  the  education  of  books,  and  were  easily 
subject  to  unreasoning  prejudices.  They  were  sometimes 
given,  too,  to  fits  of  listless  idleness,  though  capable,  on  occa- 
sion, of  fierce  energy  and  terrible  intensity.  Happily,  the 
New  England  immigration  of  the  thirties  and  forties  infused  a 
leaven  of  steadfast  habits,  regular  industry,  and  high  idealism. 

286.  One  Source  of  American  Democracy.  —  The  West  was 
democratic  and  self-confident.  It  believed  in  the  worth  of  the 
common  man,  and  in  his  capacity.  Its  chief  habits  of  mind 
were  a  rude  and  wholesome  optimism  and  an  impatience  of  the 
claims  of  authority.  With  ardent  patriotism  it  revered  the 
old  names  of  American  history ;  but  in  practice  it  repudiated 
the  political  ideals  of  Winthrop  and  Washington,  Hamilton 
and  Adams. 

Already  the  West  had  become  "  the  most  American  part  of. 
America."  Here,  in  its  especial  home,  the  new  nation  thrilled 
most  keenly  with  the  flush  of  assured  success.  Here  it  showed 
best  its  raw  youth,  unpolished,  but  sound  at  heart;  crude, 
ungainly,  lacking  the  poise  and  repose  and  dignity  of  older 
societies,  but  buoyantly  self-assured,  throbbing  with  rude  vigor, 
grappling  unconcernedly  with  impossible  tasks,  getting  them 
done  somehow,  and  dreaming  overnight  of  vaster  ones  for  the 
morrow.  Some  small  embarrassment  it  felt  for  its  temporary 
ignorance  of  books  and  art;  but  it  exulted  boastfully  in  its 
mastery  of  nature  and  its  daring  social  experiments,  and  it 
appealed,  with  sure  faith,  to  the  future  to  add  the  refinements 
and  graces  of  life. 

All  this  boastfulness  provoked  natural  criticism  ;  but  it 
was  the  well-justified  "American  propensity  to  look  forward  to 
the  future  "  for  whatever  it  lacked  in  the  present  that  partic- 
ularly amused  the  many  supercilious  and  superficial  English 
travelers   of  the   day.       These    prejudice-blinded   gentlemen 


474  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

delighted  in  portraying,  with  microscopic  detail,  skin-deep 
blemishes  of  American  society ;  but  they  failed  utterly  to  see 
the  most  amazing  spectacle  of  all  history  spread  before  their 
eyes:  —  a  nation  in  the  making;  occupying  and  subduing  a 
rebellious  continent;  felling  forests,  plowing  prairies,  clear- 
ing the  rivers,  hewing  out  roads ;  founding  farms  and  towns 
and  commonwealths ;  solving  off-hand  grave  economic  prob- 
lems, wastefully  sometimes,  but  effectively  for  the  purpose; 
and  inventing  and  working  out,  on  a  gigantic  scale,  new  and 
progressive  principles  of  society  and  government.  "  You  can't 
write  books,"  carped  the  visitor.  "  We're  busy  just  now," 
shouted  the  West  over  its  shoulder,  "  but  just  wait  till  we  get  this 
bridge  built,  those  prairies  farmed,  that  new  constitution  framed." 

In  1820,  Sidney  Smith  closed  his  tirade  in  the  Edinburgh  Beview  with 
the  famous  passage  :  "  Who,  in  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  reads  an 
American  hook  ?  or  goes  to  an  American  play  ?  or  looks  at  an  American 
painting  or  statue  ?  .  .  .  What  new  substances  have  their  chemists  dis- 
covered ?  .  .  .  Who  drinks  out  of  American  glasses  ?  or  eats  from  Amer- 
ican plates  ?  ...  or  sleeps  in  American  blankets  ?  "  To  this  charge, 
which  the  next  twenty  years  were  to  make  stupendously  ridiculous,  the 
North  American  Beview  replied  with  the  customary  defense,  —  the 
appeal  to  the  future.  This  resulted  in  more  ridicule.  "Others,"  laughed 
the  English  reviewer,  "claim  honor  because  of  things  done  by  a  long 
line  of  ancestors :  an  American  glories  in  the  achievements  of  a  dis- 
tant posterity.  .  .  .  Others  appeal  to  history ;  an  American  appeals  to 
prophecy.  ...  If  a  traveller  complains  of  the  inns  and  hints  a  dislike 
for  sleeping  four  in  a  bed,  he  .  .  .  is  told  to  wait  a  hundred  years  and 
see  the  superiority  of  American  inns  over  British.  If  Shakspere,  Milton, 
Newton,  are  mentioned,  he  is  told  again,  '  Wait  till  we  have  cleared  our 
land,  till  we  have  idle  time,  wait  till  1900,  and  then  see  how  much  nobler 
our  poets  and  profounder  our  philosophers  and  longer  our  telescopes, 
than  any  your  decrepit  old  hemisphere  will  produce.' "  That  the  retort 
might  not  seem  so  amusing  "in  1900"  never  occurred  to  the  English 
humorist, — "or  that  there  was  quite  as  much  sense  in  taking  pride  in 
descendants  (whom  we  will  have  some  share  in  fashioning)  as  in  ances- 
tors, who  have  only  fashioned  us.1 

1  Almost  the  only  European  visitor  who  appreciated  the  magnificent  scene 
in  America  was  the  Frenchman,   Tocqueville   (§198,  note).     Even  Charles 


AWAKENING  OF  LABOR  475 


B.    The  Awakening  of  Labor,  1825-1837.  **m 

287.  The  Second  Factor  in  Democratic  Progress.  —  The  laboring 
classes,  organized  in  "  mechanics'  associations,"  x  had  been  largely  re- 
sponsible for  the  growth  toward  democracy  in  Revolutionary  days,  and 
indeed  for  the  Revolution  itself.  This  fact,  together  with  the  too  com- 
mon tendency  to  ignore  our  debt,  has  been  noted.  Still  deeper  is  our 
debt  to  labor  regarding  the  social  and  political  movements  summed  up 
under  the  name  Jacksonian  Democracy.  That  upheaval  has  been  com- 
monly explained  almost  exclusively,  on  the  political  side,  by  reference  to 
the  farmers  of  the  West  with  leaders  like  Clay  and  Jackson,  and,  on  the 
social  side,  by  reference  to  a  humanitarian  movement  in  the  higher  cir- 
cles of  Eastern  society  with  leaders  like  Horace  Mann.  These  were  real 
causes.  But  it  is  now  proven  that  underlying  them,  and  vitalizing  them, 
was  a  mightier  force,  —  the  labor  movement  of  the  day,  organized  in 
"trade  associations  "  and  u  Trades'  Unions." 

Conclusive  and  voluminous  evidence  of  this  fact  is  collected  in  the 
recent  Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society.2  This  publica- 
tion compels  a  radical  recasting  of  the  traditional  history  of  American 
progress  during  the  middle  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Henceforth, 
history  must  portray  the  development  of  the  democratic  free  school  (in 
place  of  "pauper  schools  "),  the  preemption  and  homestead  features  of 
our  public  land  policy,  even  the  political  agitation  for  manhood  suffrage, 

Dickens,  whom  America  loved,  saw  chiefly  the  spittoons  and  the  hurry  at 
lunch  counters  (Martin  Chuzzlewit  and  American  Notes).  Englishmen  paid 
dearly  for  this  flippant  blindness  by  the  rancor  stirred  in  American  hearts, 
which  unhappily  persisted  long  after  England  frankly  confessed  her  error 
and  tried  to  atone. 

One  anecdote  by  Tocqueville  to  illustrate  the  new  jovial  democracy  of  the 
"common  people"  should  be  familiar  to  all  students  for  its  deeper  meanings. 
In  a  crowded  assembly  certain  dignitaries  were  trying  to  force  a  way  through. 
"  Make  way  there,"  they  cried,  "  we  are  the  representatives  of  the  people." 
"  Make  way  yourselves,"  came  back  the  retort,  "  We  are  the  people." 

1  These  associations  were  political  only  ;  not  industrial. 

2  Ten  octavo  volumes  (some  4000  pages)  edited  by  John  R.  Commons,  in 
association  with  four  other  scholars,  and  completed  in  1910.  The  work  should 
be  accessible  in  every  high  school  library.  Volumes  V  and  VI  (edited  by 
Dr.  Commons  and  Helen  L.  Sumner),  Labor  Movements  from  1820  to  1840,  are 
especially  valuable ;  and  the  two  following  volumes  hardly  less  so.  The 
passages  quoted  in  fine  print  in  the  following  paragraphs,  unless  otherwise  in- 
dicated, come  from  Vol.  V,  pp.  55-62  and  195-197. 


476  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

and  still  more  the  general  movement  for  the  recognition  of  human  rights 
as  superior  to  property  rights,  as  all  due  primarily  to  the  long-forgotten 
labor  unions  of  the  late  twenties  and  the  thirties.1 

288.  Retrograde  Conditions.  —  So  long  as  labor  had  remained 
almost  wholly  agricultural,  there  had  been  little  opportunity 
"  for  organization  in  order  to  raise  wages  and  improve  conditions. 
And  there  had  been  little  need.  The  presence  of  free  land  at 
the  door  gave  farm  laborers  a  better  leverage.  Moreover, 
under  the  "  domestic  system,"  strikes  had  been  infrequent  even 
in  manufacturing  industries  and  in  the  trades.  Each  "  master  " 
worked  side  by  side  with  his  journeymen  and  apprentices, 
sharing  all  their  hard  conditions ;  and  each  of  the  employees 
expected  in  time  to  become  employer  and  "  master."  Hours  of 
labor,  it  is  true,  were  excessive,  and  wages  were  low ;  but  this 
was  mainly  because,  in  the  dearth  of  machinery,  labor  produced 
little  surplus  wealth.  There  had  been  no  sharp  division  between 
capital  and  labor,  and  no  distinct  and  permanent  labor  class. 

But  between  1800  and  1825,  these  conditions  changed 
rapidly,  —  and  not  to  the  advantage  of  the  workers.  The  mass 
of  hired  labor  shifted  from  agriculture  to  the  trades  and  manu- 
factures. The  growth  of  cities  (in  which  these  industries  more 
and  more  were  concentrated)  crowded  the  poorer  population 
into  squalid  and  unwholesome  tenements,  under  conditions  of 
destitution,  disease,  vice,  and  crime,  —  against  which  neither 
science  nor  law  had  begun  to  guard.  The  growth  of  machinery 
multiplied  wealth,  but  left  the  increase  almost  ivholly  in  the  hands 
of  a  new  capitalist  class,  made  up  of  large  manufacturers, 
speculators,  and  "money  kings."  Wages  had  risen  nominally; 
but  really  they  had  fallen,  because  they  had  risen  less  rapidly, 
by  far,  than  prices.  Child  labor  was  a  terrible  abuse,  as  yet 
unchecked  by  law.     Hours  of  toil  remained   ruinously  long. 

1  Ordinarily,  a  text-book  is  not  the  place  to  emphasize  novel  views.  But 
in  this  all-important  matter,  it  seems  imperative  to  present  this  obligation  of 
America  (now  thoroughly  proven)  in  stronger  and  truer  perspective  than  was 
possible  to  any  general  work  before  the  appearance  of  the  epoch-making  Doc- 
umentary History. 


AWAKENING  OF  LABOR  477 

In  the  trades  (such  as  carpentry)  men  worked  generally  from 
sunrise  to  sunset,  or  even  "  from  dark  to  dark,"  and  the  new- 
factory  system  ground  even  the  children  with  a  monotonous 
toil  of  from  thirteen  to  fifteen  hours  a  day.  Meanwhile  the  old 
leverage  of  free  land  was  lost.  Land  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Eastern  centers  of  population  was  no  longer  "  free."  The 
public  domain  in  the  West  did  afford  refuge  to  individuals  of 
self-reliance,  and  of  some  little  capital ;  but  to  the  average  work- 
man in  the  East,  especially  with  a  family,  it  seemed  inaccessible 
from  distance  and  expense,  and  still  more  from  those  legal  un- 
certainties which  were  soon  to  be  removed  by  our  preemption 
and  homestead  laws  (§§  317,  367,  376). 

Professor  Richard  T.  Ely  wrote  many  years  ago  {Labor  Movement  in 
America,  49)  :  "The  length  of  actual  labor  [in  1832]  in  .  .  .  the  Eagle 
Mill  at  Griswold  (Connecticut)  was  fifteen  hours  and  ten  minutes.  The 
regulations  at  Patterson,  New  Jersey,  required  women  and  children  to  be 
at  work  at  half-past  four  in  the  morning.  .  .  .  Operatives  were  taxed  by 
the  companies  for  the  support  of  religion.  .  .  .  Women  and  children  were 
urged  on  by  the  use  of  the  cowhide." 

We  know  now  that  such  conditions  were  not  exceptional :  they  were  the 
rule.  In  the  Massachusetts  legislature  of  1825,  a  committee  on  education 
tabulated  replies  from  the  mayor  and  aldermen  of  all  Massachusetts  factory 
towns  regarding  hours  of  labor  for  children  and  their  opportunities  for 
schooling.  The  report  seems  never  to  have  been  published.  No  doubt  the 
replies  were  as  favorable  as  shame,  or  local  pride,  could  make  them ;  but 
no  town  claimed  less  than  eleven  hours  of  steady  work  per  day  for  children 
(from  six  to  seventeen  years  old) ,  and  only  two  reported  so  short  a  day. 
The  usual  ."  sun  to  sun  "  day  was  frankly  reported  in  many  cases  ;  and  in 
others  it  was  glossed  by  such  phrases  as  "all  day,"  "twelve  hours," 
or  "thirteen  hours."  Seekunk  reported  that  its  child  operatives  "work 
twelve  hours;  Some  may  get  eight  weeks'  Schoolg."  Waltham  failed  to 
state  the  hours  of  labor,  but  said  "  As  much  oppy  for  Schoolg  as  can  be  ex- 
pected "  (t)  Bellingham  honestly  reported,  "  Work  twelve  hours  pr  day. 
No  oppy  for  School  except  by  employg  substitutes."  [For  this  long  labor 
day  meant  every  day  in  the  year,  save  Sundays,  be  it  remembered,  except 
in  a  few  places  where  conditions  made  it  more  profitable  to  close  the 
factories  for  some  eight  weeks  of  the  winter.]  Southbridge  reported 
"  Average  twelve  hours.  These  children  are  better  off  than  their  neigh- 
bors" (!)  Boston  said  concisely,  "No  Schoolg."  Fall  River,  with  un- 
conscious irony,  stated,  "  Work  all  day.     There   are   good  public  and 


/ 


478  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

private  S.  and  a  free  Sunday  School."  The  committee's  very  cautious 
and  timid  summary  reads:  "It  appears  that  the  time  of  employment  is 
generally  twelve  or  thirteen  hours  each  day,  excepting  the  Sabbath,  which 
leaves  little  time  for  daily  instruction  (!)  Regard  is  paid  to  the  instruc- 
tion of  these  Juvenile  laborers  as  opportunity  permits,  but  some  further 
legislative  provisions  may  hereafter  become  necessary,  that  the  children 
who  at  a  future  day  are  to  become  proprietors  of  these  establishments,  or 
at  least  greatly  to  influence  their  affairs,  may  not  be  subjected  to  too  great 
devotion  to  pecuniary  interest  at  the  risk  of  more  than  an  equivalent 
injury  in  the  neglect  of  intellectual  improvement." 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  this  cowardly  glossing  of  horrible  con- 
ditions the  temperate  but  comprehensive  statement  by  "  Many  Operatives  " 
in  the  Mechanics'1  Free  Press  for  August  21,  1830,  regarding  children  in  the 
Philadelphia  factories  :  — 

"  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  principal  part  of  the  helps  in  cotton 
factories  consist  of  boys  and  girls,  we  may  safely  say  from  six  to  seventeen 
years  of  age,  and  [i.e.  who]  are  confined  to  steady  employment  during 
the  longest  days  of  the  year,  from  daylight  until  dark,  allowing  at  the 
outside  one  hour  and  a  half  per  day  [for  meals]  .  .  .  and  that  too  with  a 
small  sum  that  is  hardly  sufficient  to  support  nature,  while  [the  employers] 
on  the  other  hand  are  rolling  in  wealth  off  the  vitals  of  these  poor  children. 
We  noticed  the  observation  of  our  Pawtucket  friend  in  your  number  of 
June  19,  lamenting  the  grievances  of  the  children  employed  in  those 
factories.  We  think  his  observation  very  correct,  with  regard  to  their 
being  brought  up  as  ignorant  as  Arabs  of  the  Desert ;  for  we  are  confident 
that  not  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  boys  and  girls  employed  in  such 
factories  are  capable  of  reading  or  writing  their  own  name.  We  have 
known  many  instances  where  parents  who  are  capable  of  giving  their 
children  a  trifling  education,  one  at  a  time,  [have  been]  deprived  of  that 
opportunity  by  their  employers'  threats  that  if  they  did  take  one  child 
from  their  employ,  a  short  time,  for  school,  such  family  must  leave  the 
employment  .  .  .  and  we  have  even  known  such  threats  put  in  execu- 
tion. .  .  .  "! 

1  The  communication  expresses  indignation  at  the  retort  of  an  employer  that 
legislation  to  shorten  the  factory  day  "  would  be  an  infringement  on  the 
rights  of  the  people,"  and  queries  significantly  "  whether  this  individual, 
or  the  number  employed  by  him,  is  the  people."  The  writers  were  overcon- 
scious  of  their  lack  of  fluent  expression  :  "We  see  the  evil  that  follows  the 
system  of  long  labor  much  better  than  we  can  express  it ;  but  we  hope  our 
weak  endeavors  -may  not  prove  ineffectual.  We  must  acknowledge  our 
inability  prevents  us  from  expressing  our  sentiment  fluently,  at  present,  but 
we  hope  to  appear  again  in  a  more  correct  manner." 


AWAKENING  OF  LABOR  479 

In  1832,  in  consequence  of  these  and  like  complaints,  there  met  at  Bos- 
ton a  convention  of  Ne,w  England  Mechanics  and  Workingmen,  which 
organized  an  Association  with  provision  for  local  branches  in  any  manu- 
facturing village,  and  with  a  detailed  constitution.  Members,  except 
farmers,  pledged  themselves  to  work  not  more  than  ten  hours  a  day 
(except  for  extra  pay).  A  committee  on  education  reported  at  length. 
Various  "fair  specimens  of  the  general  state  of  things  "  are  enumerated.1 
Then  the  summary  continues  :  — 

"  The  children  .  .  .  employed  in  manufactories  constitute  about  two 
fifths  of  the  whole  number  of  persons  employed.  ...  On  a  general 
average  the  youth  and  children  .  .  .  are  compelled  to  labor  at  least 
thirteen  and  a  half,  perhaps  fourteen,  hours  per  day,  factory  time.  And 
in  addition  to  this,  there  are  about  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes  added, 
by  reason  of  that  time  being  slower  than  the  true  solar  time  [work  be- 
gan by  the  sun  time,  appearance  of  light,  and  closed  by  the  factory 
clock,  at  eight],  thus  making  a  day  of  labor  to  consist  of  at  least  four- 
teen hours,  winter  and  summer,  out  of  which  is  allowed,  on  an  average 
not  to  exceed  one  hour  for  rest  and  refreshment.  Your  committee  also 
learn  that  in  general  no  child  can  be  taken  from  a  Cotton  Mill,  to  be 
placed  at  school,  for  any  length  of  time,  however  short,  without  certain 
loss  of  employ.  .  .  .  Nor  are  parents,  having  a  number  of  children  in  a 
mill,  allowed  to  withdraw  one  or  more  without  withdrawing  the  whole,  — 
for  which  reason,  as  such  children  are  generally  the  offspring  of  parents 
whose  poverty  has  made  them  entirely  dependent  on  the  will  of  their 
employers,  they  are  very  seldom  taken  from  the  mills  to  be  placed  in 
school.  ...  It  is  with  regret  that  your  committee  are  absolutely  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  only  opportunities  allowed  to  children  gener- 
ally, employed  in  manufactories,  to  obtain  an  education,  are  on  the  Sab- 
bath and  after  half-past  8  o'clock  of  the  evening  of  other  days. 
[Lowell  is  noted  as  an  "  honorable"  exception,  since  there  no  children  are 
admitted  to  the  mills  under  twelve  years  of  age.  ]  Your  committee  can- 
not, therefore,  without  the  violation  of  a  solemn  trust,  withhold  their 
unanimous  opinion  that  the  opportunities  allowed  to  children  employed 
in  manufactories  to  obtain  an  education  suitable   to  the   character  of 


1  For  instance,  Hope  Factory  (Rhode  Island)  is  stated  to  "  ring  the  first 
bell  at  ten  minutes  before  the  break  of  day,  the  second  bell  te%  minutes  after 
the  first,  in  five  minutes  after  which  all  hands  are  to  be  at  their  labor.  The 
time  for  shutting  the  gates  at  night,  as  signal  for  labor  to  cease,  is  eight 
o'clock  by  the  factory  time,  which  is  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  minutes 
behind  the  true  time.  And  the  only  respite  from  labor  during  the  day  is 
twenty-five  minutes  at  breakfast,  and  the  same  number  at  dinner." 


480  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

American  freeman,  and  to  the  wives  and  mothers  of  such,  are  altogether 
inadequate  to  the  purpose  ;  that  the  evils  complained  of  are  unjust  and 
cruel ;  and  are  no  less  than  the  sacrifice  of  the  dearest  interests  of  thou- 
sands of  the  rising  generation  to  the  cupidity  and  avarice  of  their  em- 
ployers. And  they  can  see  no  other  result  in  prospect  .  .  .  from  such 
practices,  than  generation  on  generation  reared  up  in  profound  ignorance, 
and  the  final  prostration  of  their  liberties  at  the  shrine  of  a  powerful 
aristocracy."  The  committee  concludes  by  recommending  as  follows  :  — 
"  Besolved,  that  a  committee  of  vigilance  be  appointed  in  each  State 
represented  in  this  convention,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  collect  and  pub- 
lish facts  respecting  the  condition  of  laboring  men,  women,  and  children, 
and  abuses  practiced  on  them  by  their  employers ;  that  it  shall  also  be 
the  duty  of  said  committees,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  get  up  memorials 
to  the  Legislatures  of  their  respective  States,  praying  for  the  regulation 
of  the  hours  of  labor,  according  to  the  standard  adopted  by  this  Associa- 
tion, and  for  wholesome  regulations  with  regard  to  the  education  of  chil- 
ly dren  and  youth  employed  in  manufactories." 

|y^"T89.  "Unions,"  Strikes,  and  Politics.  —  Labor  "unions" 
appeared  in  America  before  1800,  but  chiefly  as  "  benevolent," 
or  "mutual  insurance,"  associations.  Soon  after  1800,  the 
newspapers  notice  "combinations  of  capitalists"  to  raise 
prices.  In  imitation,  the  labor  combinations  began  to  "  strike  " 
in  order  to  raise  wages.  Between  1802  and  1807,  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Boston,  and  Baltimore  each  had  one  or  more 
such  strikes.  At  first,  the  leaders  were  promptly  arrested, 
and  punished  sternly  by  the  courts,  for  "conspiracy  "  —  under 
the  odious  principles  of  the  English  Common  Law.  But  in 
Baltimore,  in  1807,  the  striking  tailors  threatened  to  tar  and 
feather  any  lawyer  who  should  take  part  in  a  prosecution  ;  and 
none  was  undertaken.  Then,  in  1825,  a  New  York  jury  de- 
stroyed the  terror  of  such  trials  for  a  time  by  awarding  a  fine 
of  "one  dollar"  for  the  "crime"  of  "conspiring  to  raise 
wages." 

Advanced  thinkers,  like  William  Ellery  Channing  or  Hor- 
ace Mann,  saw  and  said  that  the  labor  question  was  the  ques- 
tion of  human  welfare.  In  general,  however,  the  "  respectable 
classes"  still  regarded  all  labor  unions  as  iniquitous  and 
revolutionary  j  and  in  Boston  a  "  combination  "  of  merchants 


AWAKENING  OF  LABOR  481 

publicly  announced  that  their  "  union  "  had  pledged  itself  to 
drive  the  shipwrights,  caulkers,  and  gravers  of  that  city  to 
abandon  u  unions  "  or  to  starve,  and  that  they  had  subscribed 
$  20,000  for  the  purpose.  The  press  was  bitterly  hostile ;  and 
not  till  1842  did  the  courts  of  any  State  recognize  for  laborers 
the  same  rights  of  organization  and  collective  bargaining  as 
were  then  possessed  without  question  by  employers.  In  that 
year  the  Massachusetts  supreme  court,  in  the  celebrated  Jour- 
neymen Bootmakers'  Case,  first  upheld  the  legality  of  labor 
organizations  to  maintain  advanced  wages  "by  rules  binding 
solely  on  members." 

In  1825  George  Henry  Evans  and  Frederick  W.  Evans 
(recent  English  immigrants)  began  at  New  York  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Working-man1  s  Advocate,  the  first  labor  paper  in 
America ;  and  in  1827  appeared  the  Mechanics'  Free  Press  at 
Philadelphia  (§  288).  From  1825,  too,  dates  a  rapid  multipli- 
cation of  "  unions  "  and  a  twelve-year  period  of  strenuous 
labor  war.  In  every  large  city  the  various  trades  succeeded 
in  organizing.  At  first,  each  "trade-association"  was  local; 
and  one  trade  had  no  connection  with  another  of  the  same  city. 
But  in  1828  a  more  significant  movement  began,  with  the 
organization  in  Philadelphia  of  the  "  Mechanics'  Union  of 
Trade-Associations,"  —  a  federation  of  the  various  trade-associa- 
tions of  the  city.1  Here,  for  the  first  time,  was  a  definite  labor- 
class  movement.  Said  the  Mechanics1  Free  Press  of  its  first 
meeting :  — 

"  This  is  the  first  time  that  workingmen  have  attempted  in  public 
meeting  to  inquire  whether  they  possess,  as  individuals  or  as  a  class,  any- 
right  to  say  by  whom  they  shall  be  governed." 

In  1833  this  advanced  form  of  federation2  spread  rapidly 

1  This  Union  of  Trades  grew  out  of  general  labor  sympathy  for  the  carpen- 
ter journeymen  in  an  unsuccessful  strike  for  a  ten-hour  day. 

2  Terms  have  shifted.  The  appropriate  name,  Trades'  Union,  has  been 
corrupted  into  "trade-union"  for  the  name  of  the  association  of  workers 
in  one  trade  ;  and  consequently  the  more  general  union  has  had  to  seek  new 
names,  —  such  as  Trades'  Assembly,  or  Trades'  Couneil. 


482  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

New  York  had  its  General  Trades'  Union1  in  that  year  and 
the  like  was  soon  true  of  the  remaining  large  cities.  Such  a 
federation  held  considerable  authority  over  the  several  local 
unions  which  composed  it.  It  usually  maintained  a  Trades' 
Union  hall,  with  courses  of  public  lectures  and  a  labor  paper, 
and  it  took  an  active  part  in  supporting  strikes  (when  approved 
by  it)  from  the  general  treasury  and  by  public  meetings. 

In  1834  came  the  third  stage  in  labor  organization  (and  the 
final  stage  for  this  period).  The  various  city  Trades'  Unions 
organized  a  national  federation.  This  "republic  of  labor" 
held  conventions  in  1834, 1835,  1836,  and  1837 ;  but  the  organ- 
ization was  imperfect,2  and  in  1837  it  was  ingulfed,  with  the 
rest  of  the  labor  movement,  for  that  time,  in  the  industrial 
depression  that  followed  the  panic  (§  313). 

290.  Political  Action.  —  Recent  extension  of  the  franchise 
had  made  voters  out  of  the  mechanics  (§  299) ;  and,  from  the 
first,  the  labor  organizations  turned  to  political  activity.  On 
August  11,  1828,  the  Philadelphia  Trades'  Union,  at  a  public 
meeting,  recommended 

"  to  the  Mechanics  and  Working  Men  of  the  city  to  support  such  men 
only  for  the  City  Councils  and  State  Legislature,  as  shall  have  pledged 
themselves  ...  to  support  the  interests  and  claims  of  the  Working 
Classes." 

It  proceeded  to  arrange  for  a  delegate  convention  to  form  a 
ticket  for  the  coming  elections,  "  without  regard  to  party  poli- 
tics." In  October,  the  "  Delegates  of  the  Working  Men  "  sent 
a  circular  letter  to  fourteen  candidates  for  the  legislature  (for 
which  seven  members  were  to  be  chosen)  "to  obtain  your 
views  in  relation  to  the  following  subjects  :  — ■ 

"  First.     An  equal  and  general  system  of  Education. 
"Second.     The  banking  system,  and  all  other  exclusive  monopolies 
(§  309). 

1  Growing  out  of  a  successful  carpenters'  strike  for  higher  wages,  a  contest 
in  which  the  carpenters  had  been  supported  actively  by  other  trades. 

2  Comparison  with  §  450  will  bring  out  the  difference  between  this  early 
federation  and  the  present  "  American  Federation  of  Labor." 


AWAKENING  OF   LABOR  483 

"  Third.  Lotteries,  whether  a  total  abolishment  of  them  is  not  essential 
to  the  moral  as  well  as  to  the  pecuniary  interest  of  society. ' ' * 

Attempts  at  wider  organization  followed  in  various  places. 
In  1830  the  Syracuse  convention  organized  the  Workingman's 
Party  for  New  York.  Its  candidate  for  governor  received  only 
3000  votes;  but  in  New  York  City  the  party  elected  Ely 
Moore  (president  of  the  New  York  Trades'  Union)  to  Congress 
for  two  terms  (1832,  1834),  and  three  labor  candidates  were 
chosen  to  the  legislature.  In  1831  the  New  England  Associa- 
tion of  Farmers,  Mechanics,  and  Other  Workingmen  held  a  con- 
vention in  Boston  which  declared  for 

"  the  organization  of  the  whole  laboring  population  "  in  order  to  revise 
"  our  social  and  political  system,"  hoping  "to  imbue  .  .  .  our  offspring 
with  .  .  .  abhorrence  for  the  usurpations  of  aristocracy  .  .  .  so  .  .  . 
that  they  shall  dedicate  their  lives  to  a  completion  of  the  work  which 
their  ancestors  commenced  in  their  struggle  for  national,  and  their  sires 
have  continued  in  their  contest  for  personal,  independence." 

And  in  1834,  in  far-away  eastern  Tennessee,  a  similar  labor 
party  brought  the  tailor  Andrew  Johnson  into  public  life  as 
alderman  in  a  mountain  village. 

The  larger  political  parties  began  eagerly  to  bid  for  the 
labor  vote  ;  and  helped,  bit  by  bit,  to  enact  much  of  its  program 
into  law.  In  New  York,  one  wing  of  the  rising  Democratic 
Party  (under  the  name  of  Loco-Focos,  or  the  "Equal  Eights 
Party  " 2)  was  particularly  friendly,  and,  in  1835,  it  absorbed 
bodily  the  Workingman's  Party,  which  had  thrown  itself  heart- 
ily into  the  support  of  Jackson  against  the  "  money  power " 

1  The  circular  continues  :  "Upon  the  important  subject  of  Education  we 
wish  most  distinctly  to  understand  whether  you  do,  or  do  not,  consider  it 
essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  rising  generation,  That  an  open  school,  and 
competent  teachers,  for  every  child  in  the  State,  from  the  lowest  branch  of  an 
infant  school  to  the  lecture  rooms  of  practical  science,  should  be  established, 
and  those  to  superintend  them  to  be  chosen  by  the  people.  ...  If  your  views 
should  be  in  accordance  with  the  interests  of  those  we  represent,  we  request 
you  to  allow  us  to  place  your  name  on  our  Ticket." 

2  The  Loco-Focos,  like  the  Workingman's  Party,  opposed  all  special 
privileges  and  monopolies,  like  the  United  States  Bank  (§  309). 


484  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

(§§  309,  340).  Soon  after  the  labor  organizations  in  other 
States  were  lost  in  the  fully  developed  Democratic  Party. 
For  some  years  that  party  remained  in  large  degree  a  working- 
man's  party.  When  it  surrendered  to  the  Slave  Power,  the 
remnants  of  the  labor  forces  made  a  leading  element  in  the 
various  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  parties  (§§338,  345  ff.) ;  but 
the  movement  for  a  distinct  labor  organization  did  not  revive 
until  after  the  Civil  War. 

291.  Aims  of  Labor.  —  This  early  labor  movement  was  not  a 
factory  movement,  though  it  felt  much  sympathy  for  the  help- 
less women  and  children  in  the  factories.  It  was  essentially 
a  mechanics'  movement.  The  division  of  feeling  at  first  was 
not  between  employer  and  employee,  but  rather  between  work- 
ers and  the  idle  rich  or  the  unproductive  speculator.  The 
growth  of  a  new  speculative  system  in  business  (as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  building  trade  with  the  rapid  growth  of  cities), 
made  master  and  journeymen  alike  feel  themselves  the  victims 
of  what  is  now  called  "  sweating."  At  first,  many  mechanics' 
unions  admitted  the  bosses ; x  and  a  convention  of  the  New  York 
Workingman's  Party  in  1830  permitted  employers  to  remain, 
but  gave  five  minutes  to  "  persons  not  living  by  some  useful 
occupation,  such  as  bankers,  brokers,  rich  men,"  etc.,  to  with- 
draw. As  Frances  Wright,  the  woman  labor-agitator  of  the 
day,  said  of  the  whole  movement:  "It  is  labor  rising  up 
against  idleness,  industry  against  money,  justice  against  law 
and  privilege." 

The  strikes  of  the  period  aimed :  (1)  to  raise  wages ;  (2)  to 
secure  what  we  now  call  the  "  closed  shop  "  {i.e.  to  compel  the 
employment  of  union  labor  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  nonunion 
men,  known  even  then  as  "  rats  "  and  "  scabs  ") ;  and  (3),  espe- 
cially, to  shorten  the  working-day  to  ten  hours.  But,  in  its 
political  action,  the  Workingman's  Party  turned  away  from 
these  problems,  vital  as  they  were,  to  broader  social  reforms. 
The   Philadelphia   queries    of   legislative  candidates    (§  290) 


i  Later,  the  bosses  allied  themselves  naturally  with  capital. 


AWAKENING  OF  LABOR  485 

are  typical.  The  only  three  tests  there  proposed  were  the 
attitude  toward  education  (nobly  denned),  toward  monopo- 
lies, and  toward  lotteries.  Other  matters  which  pressed  to  the 
front  for  legislative  action  at  other  times  were:  abolition  of 
imprisonment  for  debt ; 'exemption  of  a  laboring  man's  home 
and  tools  from  execution  for  debt  f  and  a  more  liberal  policy 
by  the  nation  in  turning  its  public  domain  into  homes.1  The 
last  of  these  can  best  be  treated  later  (§  367).  The  "  closed- 
shop"  principle  failed,  for  the  time,  with  the  failure  of  the 
unions,  in  the  panic  of  1837.  Some  of  the  other  aims  demand 
larger  notice  here  (§§  292-293). 

29$.  The  ten-hour  day  was  finally  secured,  —  in  part  by  strikes,  in 
part  by  political  pressure.  Philadelphia  had  been  the  scene  of  particu- 
larly strenuous  strikes  to  replace  the  "  sun-to-sun  "  day  with  a  "  six-to- 
six"  day.2     These  failed,  in  the  main;  but  monster  petitions  poured 


i  In  1830  the  Evans  brothers  carried  at  the  head  of  every  issue  of  their 
Workingman' s  Advocate  —  which  was  now  rechristened  Young  America  — 
their  version  of  ' '  The  Twelve  Demands  of  Labor  :  — 

"  First.    The  right  of  man  to  the  soil  :  '  Vote  yourself  a  farm.' 

"  Second.    Down  with  monopolies,  especially  the  United  States  Bank. 

"  Third.    Freedom  of  public  lands. 

"  Fourth.    Homesteads  made  inalienable. 

"  Fifth.    Abolition  of  all  laws  for  collection  of  debts. 

"  Sixth.    A  general  bankrupt  law. 

"  Seventh.    A  lien  of  the  laborer  upon  his  own  work  for  his  wages. 

"  Eighth.   Abolition  of  imprisonment  for  debt. 

"  Ninth.    Equal  rights  for  women  with  men  in  all  respects. 

"  Tenth.    Abolition  of  chattel  slavery  and  of  wages  slavery. 

"Eleventh.  Limitation  of  ownership  of  land  to  160  acres  per  person 
[with  provision  for  division  of  estates  at  death  of  owners  until  this  condition 
should  be  secured]. 

"  Twelfth.  Mails  to  run  on  the  Sabbath.  1! 
Eight  of  the  twelve  have  oeen  fully  adopted,  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
were  then  understood.  Even  the  eleventh  came  near  adoption  in  the  consti- 
tution of  Wisconsin.  The  eleventh  and  the  first  were  peculiar  to  a  small 
wing  of  the  labor  party,  led  by  the  Evanses,  who  held  doctrines  regarding 
land  closely  akin  to  the  later  "  Single  Tax  "  movement. 

2  This  moderate  demand  was  long  resisted  by  the  capitalist  class,  as  though 
to  grant  it  would  subvert  all  social  order.  When  the  carpenter  journeymen 
of  Philadelphia  first  organized  to  secure  a  ten-hour  day  (in  1827),  the  em- 


486  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

t 

upon  the  city  government  to  adopt  the  shorter  day  for  workingmen  em- 
ployed for  the  city,  and,  June  4,  1835,  the  city  council  yielded  assent. 
Private  concerns  slowly  followed.  In  Baltimore,  the  same  year,  a  gen- 
eral strike  established  the  ten-hour  day  for  all  business,  public  and  pri- 
vate. But,  in  the  Boston  district,  three  great  strikes  for  this  object 
were  crushed  by  irresistible  combinations  of  capitalists  pledged  publicly 
to  force  their  employees  to  keep  the  old  "  dawn-to-dark  "  day.  Success 
there,  and  in  many  other  centers,  came  about  1850.  through  the  example 
of  the  Federal  Government.  Van  Buren  had  been  closely  associated  with 
the  New  York  Loco-Focos  (§  290)  ;  and  the  National  Convention  of 
Trades'  Unions  in  1836  had  brought  all  possible  pressure  to  bear  upon 
him,  during  his  campaign,  for  Government  action.  Accordingly,  in  1840, 
as  President,  Van  Buren  issued  a  notable  order  directing  a  ten-hour  day 
in  the  navy  yards  and  in  all  "  public  establishments  "  of  the  Govern- 
ment.    (Cf.  §  314,  note.) 

293.  Free  Schools.  —  Foremost  in  the  demands  of  labor  was 
placed  the  free  school,  supported  by  public  taxes  and  con- 
trolled by  the  public  will.  In  New  England,  in  some  measure, 
the  principle  was  already  accepted,  —  though  even  there  the 
public  schools  were  less  efficient  than  the  private  ones.  In 
Pennsylvania  the  constitution  of  1790  declared,  "  The  legisla- 
ture shall  provide  schools  in  which  the  poor  may  be  taught 
gratis."  The  result  was,  that  (outside  Philadelphia,  Pittsburg, 
and  Lancaster)  all  public  schools  in  Pennsylvania  were  pauper 
schools,  —  cheap  private  enterprises,  in  which  poor  children 
might  be  "educated  M  in  return  for  funds  appropriated  by  the 

plovers  united  in  an  address  to  the  public  complaining  of  the  attempt  to  "  de- 
prive employers  of  about  one-fifth  part  of  their  usual  time  "  ;  viewing  "with 
regret  the  formation  of  a  society  that  has  a  tendency  to  subvert  good  order, 
and  coerce  or  mislead  those  who  have  been  industriously  pursuing  their  avoca- 
tion and  honestly  maintaining  their  families  " ;  resolving,  not  to  "  employ 
any  Journeyman  who  will  not  give  his  time  and  labor  as  usual ;  in  as  much 
as  we  believe  the  present  mode  has  not  been,  and  is  not  now,  oppressive  to 
the  workmen  "  {Doc.  Hist.  Am.  Industrial  Society,  V,  81). 

The  journeymen  replied  with  an  appeal  for  public  sympathy,  setting  forth 
the  reasonableness  of  their  demands  and  closing :  "  Citizens  of  Philadelphia, 
to  you  we  appeal ;  with  you  rests  the  ultimate  success  or  failure  of  our  cause. 
Will  you  not  assist  us  ?  Remember  we  are  men  .  .  .  and  say  will  you  com- 
bine with  our  employers  to  force  us  to  be  slaves  "  (lb.  80). 


LABOR  AND  FREE  SCHOOLS  487 

commissioners  of  the  counties.  In  this  State  and  in  New 
York,  labor  insisted  strenuously  upon  the  public  free  school,  in 
contrast  to  a  pauper  school.  The  documents  are  too  long  and 
many  to  be  even  indicated;  but  they  are  noble  reading  even 
to-day.  In  February,  1830,  a  committee  of  the  Philadelphia 
Mechanics'  Union  reported  to  a  meeting  of  "the  friends  of 
general  and  equal  education"  along  and  remarkable  statement 
on  conditions  in  Pennsylvania,  with  a  draft  of  a  bill  to  correct 
the  evils.  Three  evenings  were  devoted  by  the  meeting  to  dis- 
cussion of  the  report,  after  which  it  was  unanimously  adopted. 
The  report  was  widely  copied  in  labor  papers.  It  protests 
against  the  absence  of  all  schools  in  many  districts,  the  -pauper 
character  of  such  as  exist,  their  limited  instruction,  and  the 
absence  of  any  attempt  to  supply  a  "judicious  infant  train- 
ing" for  children  under  five.  Their  own  bill,  the  committee 
claim,  will  extend  schools  throughout  the  whole  common- 
wealth; will  place  them  "immediately  under  the  control  and 
suffrage  of  the  people  " ;  and  "  its  benefits  and  privileges  will 
not,  as  at  present,  be  limited,  as  an  act  of  charity,  to  the  poor 
alone,  but  will  extend  equally  and  of  right  to  all  classes,  and 
be  supported  at  the  expense  of  all."1 

1  One  paragraph  of  the  report  runs :  "  In  a  republic,  the  people  constitute 
the  government,  and  by  wielding  its  powers  in  accordance  with  the  dictates, 
either  of  their  intelligence  or  their  ignorance,  of  their  judgment  or  their 
caprices,  are  the  makers  and  the  rulers  of  their  own  good  or  evil  destiny. 
...  It  appears,  therefore  .  .  .  that  there  can  be  no  real  liberty  without  a 
wide  diffusion  of  real  intelligence  .  .  .  and  that  education,  instead  of  being 
limited  as  in  our  public  poor  schools,  to  a  simple  acquaintance  with  words 
and  cyphers,  should  tend  as  far  as  possible,  to  the  production  of  a  just  dispo- 
sition, virtuous  habits,  and  a  rational  self-governing  character." 

The  capitalistic  press  of  the  day  adopted  toward  all  this  a  tone  of  conde- 
scension and  reproof  which  to-day  has  an  amusing  sound.  More  of  educa- 
tion was  already  attainable  by  the  poor  in  America  than  anywhere  else,  it 
was  insisted  ;  much  more  could  never  be  expected.  "  The  peasant  must  labor 
during  those  hours  of  the  day  which  his  wealthy  neighbor  can  give  to  abstract 
culture  :  otherwise  the  earth  would  not  yield  enough  for  the  subsistence  of 
all."  And  again,  "Education  .  .  .  must  be  the  work  of  individuals.  .  .  . 
If  a  government  concern,  nothing  could  prevent  it  from  becoming  a  political 
job  "  (still  one  of  the  most  effective  cries  against  extension  of  public  control 

1        . 


488  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

In  the  following  July,  a  Philadelphia  city  convention  of  the 
Workingman's  Party  issued  a  long  address  to  the  workingmen 
of  the  State,  urging  united  political  action  to  abolish:  (1)  the 
"foul  blot"  of  imprisonment  for  debt;  (2)  "the  granting  of 
special  favors  in  charters  and  monopolies,  by  which  the  profits 
arising  from  any  branch  of  trade  are  taken  from  the  commu- 
nity and  given  to  favorites"  ;  (3)  lotteries ; x  (4)  the  compulsory 
militia  system.  But  more  than  half  the  whole  space  is  given 
to  a  plea  for  extending  and  improving  the  system  of  public 
education.  Indeed,  that  part  of  the  address  which  points  out 
a  specific  program  of  reform  begins  with  the  words,  "The 
main  pillar  of  our  system  is  general  education."  After  pro- 
testing against  the  "pauper"  idea  so  prominent  in  the  ele- 
mentary schools  of  the  day,  and  urging,  through  some  pages, 
the  earnest  cooperation  of  all  workers  in  the  "  glorious  work  of 
intellectual  emancipation"  of  their  children  by  the  establish- 
ment of  a  broad  State  system,  there  follows  the  significant 
paragraph,  "It  may  perhaps  be  owing  to  the  non-existence 
of  this  desirable  object  that  we  have  to  complain  of  other  evils 
affecting  the  interests  of  the  workingman.  ..."  And,  after 
dealing  with  some  of  those  other  evils,  the  address  returns  at 
its  conclusion  to  the  supreme  matter  of  public  education: 
"  Education  is  alone  the  banner  on  which  our  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty  can  be  inscribed,  never  to  be  effaced." 

in  other  fields).  Moreover,  the  projects  were  reviled  as  "  Agrarianism,"  "  an 
arbitrary  division  of  property  "  ;  and  one  editor  deplores  the  taking  away 
from  "the  more  thriving  members"  of  the  working  classes  "one  of  their 
chief  incitements  to  industry,  —  the  hope  of  earning  the  means  of  educating 
their  children."  This  would  offer  a  "premium  for  comparative  idleness." 
Indeed,  it  is  hard  to  find  any  of  the  hoary  arguments,  still  furbished  anew 
against  every  democratic  proposal,  which  was  not  worn  threadbare  in  opposi- 
tion to  a  free-school  system  in  the  thirties. 

1  "  There  are  at  present,"  says  the  address,  "not  less  than  200  lottery 
offices  in  Philadelphia,  and  as  many,  if  not  more,  persons  engaged  in  hawk- 
ing tickets."  And  special  complaint  is  directed  at  these  "  itinerant  venders  " 
who  "assail  the  poor  man  at  his  labor,  enter  the  abode  of  the  needy,  and, 
by  holding  out  false  promises  of  wealth,  induce  him  to  hazard  his  little  all 
in  the  demoralizing  system." 


LABOR  AND  FREE  SCHOOLS 

It  was  to  a  people  so  awakened  that  Horace  Mann  began  to 
appeal  in  behalf  of  educational  reform.  In  1837  he  secured  a 
State  Board  of  Education  in  Massachusetts,  and  (in  1839)  the 
establishment  of  the  first  Normal  School  in  America,  and  so 
began  to  lift  the  elementary  schools  of  the  Bay  State  from  the 
abyss  into  which  they  had  slipped.  Other  eastern  common- 
wealths followed  with  similar  legislation.  Meantime,  the 
democratic  West  had  already  set  up  its  ideal  of  a  comprehen- 
sive system  of  free  public  education,  such  as  the  workingmen 
of  the  East  desired. 

Elementary  schools  in  the  Northwestern  States  had  some  encourage- 
ment from  the  land  grant  in  the  Survey  Ordinance  of  1785  (§  183)  ;  and 
"  universities  "  were  founded  early  to  save  the  national  grant  for  "higher 
institutions  of  learning."  It  was  natural,  therefore,  for  those  States  to 
return  to  the  noble  Puritan  vision  of  a  complete  State  system,  and  to  try 
to  link  those  two  extremes  by  public  "  high  schools."  The  first  constitu- 
tion of  Indiana  (1816)  declared  it  the  duty  of  future  legislatures  to  estab- 
lish "  a  general  system  of  education,  ascending  in  a  regular  gradation 
from  township  schools  to  a  State  University, — wherein  tuition  shall  be 
gratis  and  equally  open  to  alV 

In  practice,  however,  even  in  the  West,  private  academies,  on  the 
New  England  model,  but  of  inferior  grade,  made  the  chief  link  between 
elementary  schools  and  college  for  two  generations  more.1  And  even 
the  elementary  schools  had  their  most  vivid  existence  on  paper.  Ohio,  in 
1825,  made  the  first  legislative  attempt  at  adequate  public  taxation  for 
common  schools  for  a  whole  State  ;  but  the  law  was  not  then  put  actually 
into  operation.  Indeed,  early  laws  for  school  taxation  in  various  states 
were  permissive  only,  leaving  the  application  to  the  will  of  local  units  ; 
and  the  land  endowments  were  often  wasted  or  lost.  Still,  by  1840,  pub- 
lic schools  were  frequent  enough  in  the  North  and  Northwest  so  that 
the  poor  boy  with  ambition  and  energy  and  self-denial  could  usually  get 
at  least  "  a  common  school  education  "  ;  but  they  were  not  yet  so  numer- 
ous or  aggressive  as  to  intrude  in  any  great  degree  on  the  attention  of 
the  indifferent. 


1  In  1831  Boston  established  an  English  High  School  alongside  its  ©Id 
Latin  School.  The  new  school,  however,  was  not  intended  to  fit  for  college, 
and,  like  other  New  England  "  high  schools  "  of  the  next  decades,  it  was  not 
part  of  a  "  State  system." 


490  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 


:■ 


294.  Human  Rights  v.  Property  Rights. — As  Professor  Com- 
mons forcefully  observes,  the  workingman  of  the  thirties  did 
not  ask  mere  equality  before  the  law:  he  asked  to  be  given 
preference  over  property.  He  asked,  as  a  right,  that  property 
of  the  wealthy  should  pay  for  educating  his  children.  He 
asked  not  only  that  his  person  should  no  longer  be  seized  for 
debt,  but  that  most  of  his  little  property  (homestead  and  means 
of  livelihood)  should  be  exempt.  And  instead  of  equality 
with  other  creditors,  he  asked  that  his  wages  should  have  a 
first  claim.1 

No  wonder  that  many  good  people  of  the  time  called  such 
demands  "agrarian"  and  communistic.  The  makers  of  the 
Constitution  had  said  that  the  main  end  of  government  was  to 
protect  property;  and  even  to-day  many  such  good  people, 
with  much  of  our  legal  system,  think  only  in  terms  of  property 
and  look  on  wages  and  labor  as  merely  one  kind  of  prop- 
erty, no  better,  at  least,  than  other  kinds.  But,  more  or  less 
consciously,  our  average  modern  thought  and  practice  have 
shifted.  Our  viewpoint,  like  that  of  the  workingman  of  the 
thirties,  has  come  to  be  that  of  man,  not  that  of  property. 
It  is  seen  that  wages,  as  property,  differ  from  the  profits  of  the 
capitalist.  The  one  may  add  to  the  graces  and  pleasures  of 
life  for  a  few :  the  other  means  life  itself,  and  the  maintenance 
of  a  decent  standard  of  life,  for  the  majority  of  men, — the 
very  basis  of  our  common  society.  Human  welfare  and  the 
claims  of  property  are  not  always  one  and  the  same  thing. 
The  law  of  the  past  had  exalted  the  rights  of  property.  The 
primitive  custom  of  attaching  the  body  of  a  debtor  as  a  slave 
had  been  softened  only  to  the  hardly  less  cruel  practice  of 
confining  him  as  the  prisoner  of  the  State.  In  his  attack  on 
this  hoary  abuse,  the  workingman  found  ready  aid  from  other 
classes.  And  by  degrees  his  claims  (then  first  put  forward) 
for  exemption  of  his  home,  his  chattels,  and  even  his  wages 

1  Doc.  History  Am.  Industrial  Society.  V,  Introduction.  Much  of  this  and 
the  following  paragraph  is  paraphrased  from  the  statements  there. 


THE   INTELLECTUAL  FERMENT  491 

have  become  fundamental  principles  of  our  jurisprudence. 
This  means  that  we  agree,  in  principle,  to  subordinate  property- 
rights  to  human  rights  at  least  "  when  the  home,  the  family, 
and  the  minimum  of  subsistence  are  at  stake."  This  profound 
and  wholesome  revolution  we  owe  to  the  labor  movement  of 
the  thirties. 

C.  Moral  and  Social  Awakening     ^ 

295.  The  Flowering  in  Literature  (Third  Factor  for  Democratic 
Growth.  —  One  manifestation  of  the  new  American  energy  was^ 
a  marvelous  outburst  in  literature.  From  Revolutionary  days, 
America  had  held  high  place  in  political  oratory ;  but,  until 
1830,  this  nobly  practical  art  was  our  only  distinction  in  letters. 
From  1812  to  1830,  leadership  in  oratory  had  been  held  by  the 
great  trio,  Webster,  Calhoun,  and  Clay,  who,  with  Edward 
Everett  added,  were  to  continue  its  masters  twenty  years  more. 
Between  1812  and  1830,  too,  had  appeared  the  early  work  of 
^Irving,  Cooper,  and  Bryant;  but  the  first  real  flowering  of 
American  letters  came  just  after  1830.  Between  that  date  and 
1845,  began  the  public  career  of  Emerson,  Hawthorne,  Holmes, 
Longfellow,  Lowell,  Poe,  and  Whittier  Hn  the  literature  of  cre- 
ative imagination  and  spiritual  power ;  of  Bancroft,  Prescott, 
Palfrey,  and  Sparks  in  historical  composition ;  of  Kent  and 
Stctfy  in  legal  commentary ;  of  Audubon,  Agassiz,  Dana,  and 
,Asa  Gray  in  science.  Noah  Webster's  Dictionary  was  pub- 
lished in  1828 ;  ten  years  later,  the  Smithsonian  Institution  **"**c* 
was  founded ;  and,  midway  between,  appeared  the  first  penny^i^g^ 
daily,  the  New  York  Sun.  fo*^uX\ 

None  of  the  writers  or  scholars  just  mentioned  belonged  south 
of  the  Potomac  or  west  of  the  mountains.  This  remarkable 
bloom  of  literature  was  confined  to  the  North  Atlantic  section, 
and  almost  wholly  to  the  New  England  district.  It  soon  found, 
however,  as  eager  an  appreciation  in  wide  areas  of  the  West  as 
in  New  England  itself.  And,  in  both  sections,  this  intellectual 
awakening  was  both  a  cause  and  result  of  the  progress  in  De~ 
mocracy. 


492  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

The  finest  part  of  this  great  literary  movement  was  rooted  in 
a  New  England  religious  awakening.  Between  1815  and  1830, 
Unitarianism,  organized  by  Channing,  had  deeply  modified  New 
England  thought.  Unitarianism  was  an  intellectual  revolt 
against  the  somber  and  rigid  doctrines  of  the  prevalent  Cal- 
vinistic  Congregationalism.  It  placed  hope  of  salvation  not  in 
the  dogma  of  the  atonement,  but  in  conduct ;  it  asserted,  in  op- 
position to  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  that  there  was  essen- 
tial good  in  every  man,  with  possibilities  of  infinite  develop- 
ment ;  it  taught,  not  that  man's  fate  was  predestined,  but  that 
he  was  himself  master  of  his  fate.  At  first  it  was  as  sternly 
logical  as  Calvinism  itself ;  but  the  Emersonian  "  Transcenden- 
talists "  of  the  thirties  placed  emphasis  upon  its  cheering 
affirmations  rather  than  its  denials,  and  gave  the  movement  a 
joyous  moral  enthusiasm.  The  old  Congregationalism  had  been 
the  fast  ally  of  aristocratic  Federalism :  Unitarianism  was  an 
expression  of  a  democratic  age.  Differ  as  they  might  in  char- 
acteristics, Emerson  and  Andrew  Jackson  belonged  funda- 
mentally to  the  same  era,  —  the  serene  prophet  of  the  spiritual 
worth  and  dignity  of  each  soul,  and  the  passionate  apostle  of 
political  and  social  equality. 

Unitarianism  never  counted  large  in  numbers  ;  but  nearly  all  the  famous 
names  catalogued  above  were  connected  with  it,  and  it  early  captured 
Harvard.  Gradually,  it  permeated  and  transformed  Calvinistic  Congrega- 
tionalism. A  less  rigidly  intellectual  revolt  against  Calvinism, — more 
emotional  than  Unitarianism  and  equally  optimistic  and  democratic, — 
gave  rise  to  Universalism  and  to  a  great  growth  of  the  Methodist  churches 
and  of  various  new  sects.1  Before  this  combined  attack,  between  1815 
and  1830,  the  Congregational  church  was  disestablished  in  New  England 
(§297). 

"Higher  education,"  of  course,  received  a  marked  impulse. 
The  early  colleges  grew  toward  better  standards,  and  many  ex- 
cellent small  colleges  began  to  flourish,  —  Amherst,  Bowdoin, 


1  Said  Emerson  of  this  "theological  thaw,"  '*  "lis  a  whole  population  of 
ladies  and  gentlemen  out  in  search  of  a  religion." 


THE   INTELLECTUAL  FERMENT  493 

Dartmouth, 1  Hobart,  Williams,  in  the  East,  with  numerous  am- 
bitious imitators  in  the  newer  States.  In  1830  Oberlin  (Ohio) 
even  opened  its  doors  to  women.  It  was  twenty  years  before 
another  institution  of  equal  rank  took  this  stand ;  but  special 
seminaries  for  girls  soon  appeared  in  large  numbers. 

296.  The  new  intellectual  ferment  of  the  thirties  and  forties 
transformed  society.  Exact  and  profound  scholarship  was  still 
lacking ;  but  an  aspiration  for  knowledge,  a  hunger  for  culture, 
a  splendid  idealism,  became  characteristic  of  American  life,  — 
to  remain  dominant  in  our  society  until  "fattened  out,"  for  a 
time,  after  1875,  by  a  gross  material  prosperity. 

During  that  long  era,  to  welcome  "  high  thinking "  at  the 
price  of  "  plain  living  "  was  instinctive  in  an  almost  unbeliev- 
ably large  portion  of  the  people. 

English  authors  of  a  new  sort  of  genius  —  Carlyle,  Brown- 
ing, William  Morris  —  as  well  as  English  scientists  with  new 
teachings,  like  Darwin  and  Huxley,  reached  appreciative 
audiences  in  America  sooner  than  at  home.2  Many  an  English 
book,  afterward  recognized  as  epoch  making,  found  its  way 
into  far  western  villages,  and  into  the  hands  of  eager  young 
men  and  women  there  who  had  never  worn  evening  dress  or 
eaten  a  course  dinner,  long  before  it  penetrated  to  even  the 
"reading  set"  at  Oxford  University.3  The  North  American 
Review  and  the  Atlantic  Monthly  (periodicals  of  fine  literary 
character  and  scholarly  tone)  could  be  seen  in  isolated  farm- 
houses on  western  prairies.  The  village  sewing  society  es- 
chewed gossip  to  listen  to  one  of  their  number  reading  aloud 
while  the  others  plied  the  needle.    Each  village  had  its  lyceum, 


1  Dartmouth  was  founded  in  colonial  times ;  but,  like  some  other  early  col- 
leges of  its  class,  its  marked  growth  in  usefulness  belongs  to  this  period. 

2  Carlyle's  long-delayed  income  from  his  books  came  first  from  reprints  in 
America,  managed  by  Emerson. 

8  Before  1862,  W.  D.  Howells,  a  young  newspaper  writer  in  a  raw  Western 
town,  counted  Browning  and  Thackeray  among  his  favorite  authors ;  but  Wal- 
ter Besant  mentions  in  his  Autobiography  that  these  authors  were  not  then 
known  to  his  set  at  Cambridge  University. 


494  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

for  the  winter  evenings,  with,  literary  programs,  —  readings, 
declamations,  and  debates  —  crude  and  quaint  enough,  some- 
times, but  better  than  "  refined  vaudeville."  Such  villages,  too, 
aspired  to  frequent  courses  of  lectures,  —  with  such  eastern 
celebrities  as  Holmes  and  Everett  on  the  program;  and  the 
proceeds  of  the  lectures  were  used  commonly  to  start  a  village 
library.1  Twice,  on  such  lecture  tours,  Emerson  penetrated 
beyond  the  Mississippi,  greeted  in  barn-like  "  halls  "  by  hard- 
handed  men  and  women,  seated  on  wooden  benches,  but  with 
eager  faces  agleam  with  keen  intellectual  delight. 

The  nearest  approach  in  all  history  to  this  intellectual  ferment  in  a 
"  populace"  was  that — far  inferior  in  quantity  and  quality  —  to  be  seen 
in  the  idle  Athenian  multitudes  who  hung  on  the  lips  of  Socrates  ;  or, 
perhaps  in  the  more  conservative  Scotch  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when 
the  poverty-stricken  hills  of  Scotland  were  sending  forth  schoolmasters 
over  the  whole  globe  wherever  English  was  spoken. 

A  caricature  picturing  a  gaunt  New  England  housewife  on  hands  and 
knees  to  scrub,  but  pushing  before  her  a  stand  holding  an  open  copy  of 
Emerson  to  which  her  eyes  were  glued,  might  have  been  applied,  with  no 
more  exaggeration,  to  show  the  strenuous  struggle  for  culture  in  many  a 
modest  home  in  Kansas  or  Minnesota.  Ambitious  boys,  barefoot  and  in 
thread  worn  coats,  thronged  the  little  colleges,  not  for  four  years  of  a  good 
time,  but  with  genuine  passion  to  break  into  the  fairy  realm  of  knowl- 
edge ;  and  their  hard-earned  dimes  that  did  not  have  to  go  for  plain  food 
went  for  books. 2 


1In  1859  Edward  Everett  lectured  at  St.  Cloud,  a  new,  straggling  village  of 
a  hundred  houses,  in  Minnesota.  The  one-room  schoolhouse  in  which  he 
spoke  was  promptly  named  the  Everett  School ;  and  receipts  from  the  "  enter- 
tainment "  were  appropriated  for  a  library  which  was  kept  for  years  in  a  pri- 
vate home.  After  the  Civil  War,  a  Woman's  Aid  Society,  which  had  been 
earning  money  to  send  dainties  and  medicines  to  sick  soldiers,  continued  its 
meetings  and  used  its  money  to  enlarge  this  choice  collection  of  hooks. 
There,  as  a  boy,  the  writer  made  first  acquaintance  with  Carlyle,  Marcus 
Aurelius,  standard  histories  of  that  day,  such  as  Prescott's  Philip  II  and 
Motley's  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  and  the  novels  of  Scott,  George  Eliot, 
and  Thackeray.  This  experience  was  typical.  The  few  books,  purchased  by 
real  book  love-",  were  not  yet  buried  in  a  mass  of  the  commonplace. 

2In  1846  a  .  j  of  eighteen  started  for  Knox  College,  at  Galesburg,  Illinois. 
By  working  as  a  farm  hand  (he  harvested  two  weeks  for  a  Virgil  and  a  Latin 
Dictionary) ,  and  by  teaching  school  for  a  few  months  (and  "  boarding  round  ' ' ) 


^ 


THE   INTELLECTUAL  FERMENT  495 


297.  Social  Reform.  — The  intellectual  and  moral  ferment  of 
the  time  overflowed  in  manifold  attempts  at  new  forms  of  social 
organization  and  at  various  Utopias  set  off  from  ordinary 
society.  New  England  Transcendentalists  tried  a  cooperative 
society  at  Brook  Farm  (1841),  with  which  Emerson  and  Haw- 
thorne were  connected.1  Robert  Owen,  who  had  already 
attempted  a  model  industrial  town  in  Scotland,  founded  New 
Harmony  in  Indiana,  where  labor  and  property  were  to  be  in 
common.2  Scores  of  like  communities  were  soon  established 
in  different  parts  of  the  West;  and  the  old  communistic 
societies  of  the  "  Shakers M  spread  rapidly.  Said  Emerson, 
with  genial  recognition  of  the  humorous  side  of  the  upheaval, 
"  Not  a  man  you  meet  but  has  a  draft  of  a  new  community  in 
his  pocket." 

Peculiar  among  these  movements  was  Mormonism,  with  its  institution 
of  polygamy.  Mormonism  was  founded  at  Palmyra  (New  York),  in 
1829,  by  Joseph  Smith,  who  claimed  to  be  a  prophet  and  to  have  discov- 
ered the  inspired  Book  of  Mormon.  Soon  the  "Latter-Day  Saints" 
removed  to  Ohio  ;  then  to  Missouri ;  and,  driven  thence  by  popular  ha- 
tred, to  Illinois,  where,  in  1841,  they  established  at  Nauvoo  a  "  Holy  City  " 
of  ten  thousand  people,  industrious  and  prosperous,  ruled  by  Smith  after 
the  fashion  of  an  ancient  Hebrew  "Judge."  Three  years  later,  a  mob 
from  surrounding  towns  broke  up  the  settlement  and  murdered  Smith. 


at  eight  dollars  a  month,  he  had  saved  up  ten  dollars.  He  walked  first  to 
Chicago,  the  nearest  town,  for  supplies  ;  but  the  unaccustomed  temptation  of 
the  display  in  a  bookstore  window  lured  him  within,  and  most  of  his  capital 
went  for  a  few  books,  which  would  seem  old-fashioned,  indeed,  to  the  boys  of 
to-day.  The  remaining  cash  bought  only  a  pair  of  shoes  and  an  Indian-blanket 
coat  (with  great  stripes  about  the  bottom).  To  save  the  precious  shoes,  he 
then  walked  the  two  hundred  miles  to  Galesburg  barefoot.  His  first  day  there, 
he  built  a  fence  for  the  President's  cow  pasture,  to  earn  money  for  text-books, 
and  found  a  place  to  work  for  his  board  through  the  college  year.  This  man 
became  one  of  the  notable  builders  of  a  Western  commonwealth. 

1  Hawthorne's  Blithedale  Romance  satirized  the  movement,  and  caricatured 
some  of  the  participants. 

2  Owen's  leadership  gave  the  name  Owenism  to  the  many  American  attempts 
at  communism  in  this  period.  Spite  of  these  failures,  his  influwjye  was  marked 
in  spreading  faith  in  human  brotherhood  and  in  arousing  the  men  who  were 
to  lead  the  social  reforms  of  the  next  generation. 


A 


X 


496  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

Then,  under  the  youthful  Brigham  Young,  the  persecuted  Mormons 
sought  refuge  in  Utah,  vaguely  supposed  to  be  a  part  of  Mexico,  but 
remote  from  any  organized  government  and  sheltered  from  "  civilization  " 
by  the  desert  and  the  Rockies.  Here  their  industry  made  the  cactus  sands 
to  bloom,  and  they  remained  in  peace  until  invaded  by  the  rush  of  gold- 
seekers  to  California  after  '49. 

More  effective  than  these  semi-monastic  reforms  were  a 
multitude  of  movements  for  social  betterment  within  the  exist- 
ing community.  Massachusetts  founded  the  first  public  hospital 
for  the  insane  ;  and  Dorothy  Dix  spent  a  noble  life  in  spreading 
such  institutions  in  other  States.  /Special  schools  for  the  deaf 
arid  the  blind  were  instituted.  State  provision  for  the  separa- 
tion of  juvenile  delinquents  from  hardened  criminals  was  begun ; 
and  for  the  criminals  themselves  more  rational  and  ivholesome 
prison  life  was  attempted.  Temperance  societies  began  in  Bos- 
ton in  1824 ;  and,  in  1846,  Maine  adopted  the  first  State-wide 
prohibition  law.  The  thirties  saw  the  beginning  of  a  long 
agitation  for  "  Woman's  Rights"  including  coeducation, 
equality  with  men  in  property  rights,1  and  the  right  to  vote. 
The  Abolition  movement  rose  and  spread,  and  soon  this  agita- 
tion against  slavery  became  the  chief  manifestation  of  this 
great  wave  of  moral  earnestness.  The  last  two  reforms,  like 
others  noted  in  §  290,  were  earnestly  championed  by  the  Work- 
ingman's  Party. 

298 .  Mechanical  invention  began  now  to  revolutionize  industry 
and  life.  From  the  inauguration  of  Washington  to  the  War 
of  1812,  patents  for  new  inventions  averaged  less  than  eighty 
a  year.  From  1812  to  1820,  they  rose  to  nearly  two  hundred 
a  year,  and  in  1830  the  number  was  544.     Twenty  years  later, 


1  The  legal  position  of  woman  was  everywhere  in  America  still  regulated 
by  the  medieval  common  law.  An  unmarried  woman's  earnings  and  "prop- 
erty "  were  not  hers  (any  more  than  a  slave's  were  his),  but  belonged  legally 
to  her  father.  A  married  woman's  property  (unless  protected  by  express 
legal  settlement)  was  her  husband's,  and,  in  many  degrading  respects,  she  was 
herself  his  chattel.  The  movement  to  reform  this  barbarous  condition,  by 
specific  changes  in  the  statute  law,  began  in  this  period. 


THE   RAILROAD  497 

the  thousand  mark  was  passed,  and  in  1860,  the  number  was 
nearly  5000.1 

The  inventions  marked  by  these  patents  saved  time  or  tended  to  make 
life  more  comfortable  and  attractive.  A  few  cases  only  can  be  mentioned. 
Axes,  scythes,  and  other  edged  tools,  formerly  imported,  were  manufac- 
tured at  home.  The  McCortnick  reaver  (to  be  drawn  by  horses)  appeared 
in  1834,  multiplying  the  farmer's  efficiency  hi  the  harvest  field  by  twenty, 
and  (with  the  general  introduction  of  threshing  machines)  making  possi- 
ble the  utilization  of  vast  grain  lands  in  the  Northwest.  Planing  mills 
created  a  new  industry  in  wood.  Colt's  "revolver"  (1835)  replaced  the 
one-shot  pistol.  Iron  cookstoves  began  to  rival  the  fireplace.  Friction 
matches  (invented  in  England  in  1827)  reduced  the  friction  of  life.  Il- 
luminating gas  for  city  streets  improved  city  morals.  In  1838,  the  Eng- 
lish Great  Western,  with  screw  propeller  and  with  coal  to  heat  its  boilers, 
established  steam  navigation  across  the  Atlantic, — though  the  bulk  of 
ocean  freight  continued  long  to  be  carried  in  American  sailing  ships. 
The  same  year  saw  the  invention  of  the  steam  hammer  and  the  successful 
application  of  anthracite  coal  to  smelting  iron.'2  In  1841  the  anaesthetic 
value  of  ether  (an  incomparable  boon  to  suffering  humanity)  was  discov- 
ered separately  by  Dr.  Morton  and  Dr.  Jackson.  The  magnetic  telegraph, 
first  invented  in  1835,  was  made  effective  in  1844.  The  sewing  machine_ 
was  patented  in  1846  ;  the  next  year  saw  the  first  rotary  printing  press. 
In  1841  Americans  had  their  full  revenge  for  earlier  British  disdain, 
when  a  member  of  the  English  cabinet,  in  response  to  questions,  declared 
in  Parliament,  "  I  apprehend  that  a  majority  of  the  really  new  inventions 
[lately  introduced  into  England]  have  originated  abroad,  especially  in 
America." 

The  Railway  deserves  a  fuller  account.  Tramways  (lines 
of  wooden  rails  for  cars  drawn  by  horses,  for  short  distances) 
came  into  use  in  some  American  cities  about  1807.  As  early 
as  1811,  John  Stevens  began  twenty  years  of  fruitless  efforts  to 

1  Special  report :  The  United  States  Patent  Law. 

2  From  about  1820,  "  stone-coal "  had  been  in  use  for  heating  dwellings  in 
eastern  cities,  and  it  had  begun  to  be  used  as  fuel  to  create  steam  power  for 
manufactures.  Indeed,  attempts  were  made  to  market  Lehigh  coal  as  early 
as  Washington's  administration ;  but  success  had  to  wait  for  the  disappear- 
ance of  wood  and  the  appearance  of  canal  transportation. 

Pittsburg  was  already  the  center  of  iron  manufactures  for  the  West.  Now 
its  neighborhood  to  both  anthracite  and  iron  made  it  a  center  of  this  great 
industry  for  the  whole  country. 


498,  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

interest  capital  in  his  dream  of  a  steam  railway.  In  1814,  in 
England,  George  Stephenson  completed  a  locomotive,  which 
found  employment  in  hauling  coal  on  short  tracks  ;  but  no 
railway  of  consequence  for  passenger  traffic  was  opened  there 
until  about  1830.  After  1825,  the  question  was  much  agitated 
in  America ;  and  July  4,  1828,  the  aged  Charles  Carrol,  signer 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  drove  the  golden  spike 
that  marked  the  beginning  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio.  The 
same  year  witnessed  a  score  of  charters  to  projected  lines ; 
but  construction  was  slow,  from  lack  of  experience  and 
materials,  and  especially  from  lack  of  engineers  to  survey 
and  construct  roadbeds ;  and  it  was  still  thought  commonly 
that  about  the  only,  advantage  for  railroads  over  canals  would 
lie  in  the  freedom  from  interruption  by  ice  during  part  of 
the  year. 

In  1830  less  than  thirty  miles  of  track  were  in  use, — and 
this  only  for  "  coaches "  drawn  by  horses ; l  but  in  1840, 
nearly  three  thousand  miles  were  in  operation,  and,  for  long 
thereafter,  the  mileage  doubled  each  five  years.  By  1850, 
the  railroad  had  begun  to  outrun  settlement,  forging  ahead 
into  the  wilderness,  "  to  sow  with  towns  the  prairies  broad," 
and  to  create  the  demand  for  transportation  which  was  to 
feed  it  (§  362  and  map). 

It  was  natural  to  treat  the  railway  like  any  other  improved  road  or  public 
highway,  so  far  as  conditions  would  permit.  Some  States,  at  first,  per- 
mitted any  one  to  run  cars  over  a  line  by  paying  proper  tolls.  But,  in  the 
absence  of  scientific  system  and   of  telegraphic  train-dispatching,  so 


1  In  1829  one  of  Stephenson's  engines  had  been  brought  over  from  England ; 
and,  with  this  as  a  model,  American  locomotives  were  soon  constructed 
successfully".  The  early  rails  were  of  wood,  protected  from  wear  by  a  cover- 
ing of  wrought-iron  "  straps,"  perhaps  half-an  inch  thick,  which  had  the 
awkward  habit  of  curling  up  at  a  loosened  end.  The  "coaches"  were  imi- 
tated in  form  from  the  stage  coach;  but  finally  a  form  more  adapted  to  the 
new  uses  was  devised.  The  rate  of  progress  on  the  first  roads  rose  to  fifteen 
miles  an  hour,  — something  quite  beyond  previous  imagination.  A  very  full 
account  of  early  railroads  may  be  found  in  McMaster,  V,  139  ff.  Almost  all 
public  libraries  contain  special  treatises  on  the  subject. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  PROGRESS  499 

many  accidents  occurred,  that  this  plan  was  given  up.1     Then  roadbed 
and  train  fell  to  one  ownership. 

It  remained  to  decide  whether  that  owner  should  be  the  public  or  a 
private  corporation.  Several  States  tried  State  ownership,  as  with  canals 
(Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania,  Michigan,  Georgia)  ;  but  lines  ran  from 
State  to  State  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  this  practically  impossible. 
No  one  in  that  day  suggested  that  the  nation  should  own  and  operate 
railroads  ;  and  so  these  tremendously  powerful  forces  were  abandoned  to 
private  corporations.2  Congress,  however,  has  many  times  encouraged 
such  corporations  by  immense  grants  of  public  lands  along  a  proposed 
line  in  a  "  Territory,"  as  State  legislatures  have  done  within  State  bor- 
ders. Unhappily,  such  grants  have  often  been  made  carelessly,  if  not 
corruptly,  without  proper  security  for  adequate  return  to  the  public  wel- 
fare. 

Exercise.  — Note  the  relation  of  the  heading  of  this  chapter  to  that  of 
Chapter  XII,  and  also  especially  the  three  forces  for  democratic  progress 
mentioned  under  The  New  Society  above. 

II.     POLITICAL   NARRATIVE 

A.     Constitutional  Changes 

299.  Manhood  Suffrage  (more  directly  exercised).  —  The  victory 
of  Jacksonian  Democracy  in  the  Nation  had  been  made  possible 
by  an  extension  of  franchise  in  the  States.  By  1821,  fifteen  of  the 
twenty-four  commonwealths  had  manhood  suffrage,  absolute  or 
virtual. 

Between  1792  and  1821,  eleven  new  States  had  been  admitted. 
Tennessee  had  an  ineffective  restriction  on  the  franchise  (removed  in  a 
new  constitution  in  1833)  ;  Ohio  at  first  required  payment  of  taxes  as  a 
qualification  for  voting ;  and  Mississippi  required  either  that  or  service  in 
the  militia.  The  other  eight  new  states  came  in  with  manhood  suffrage. 
Four  of  the  older  States  also  had  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  the  progres- 

1  "  Single-tax  "  reformers  believe  that  this  plan  should  be  reintroduced 
under  the  improved  conditions  of  to-day. 

2  Usually  known  to-day  as  "public-service  "  corporations  (along  with  city 
gas  companies,  electric  lighting  companies,  etc.)  because  they  can  exist  only 
by  grants  of  right-of-way  and  other  privileges  from  the  public,  in  return  for 
expected  services  to  the  public. 


500  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

sive  West.  Maryland  adopted  manhood  suffrage  in  1810  ;  Connecticut, 
in  1818  ;  and,  in  1821,  Massachusetts  and  New  York  reduced  their  former 
qualifications  to  tax  payment  or  militia  service.1  In  1826  New  York 
removed  even  this  restriction ;  and  by  this  time,  too,  the  tax  payment 
restriction  had  ceased  to  exclude  seriously. 

This  democratic  success  had  brought  with  it  other  constitutional 
changes :  (i)  removal  of  property  qualifications  for  holding  office ; 
(2)  direct  popular  election  of  governor,  in  place  of  appointment  by  leg- 
islatures ;  (3)  popular  election  even  of  the  State  courts ;  and  (4)  aboli- 
tion of  test  oaths,  and  admission  of  Jews  and  Catholics  to  office,  and  the 
overthrow  of  the  church  establishments  in  Connecticut  and  Massachu- 
setts.2 Social  changes  also  followed.  In  Connecticut  it  was  observed 
that  after  the  democratic  victory  in  18 18,  public  officials  no  longer  wore 
cockaded  hats,  powdered  hair,  or  knee-breeches  and  silk  stockings. 

These  reforms  were  carried  against  vehement  protest  by  the  revered 
elder  statesmen.  The  aged  John  Adams  and  the  stalwart  Webster  joined 
in  stubborn  resistance  in  Massachusetts.  In  New  York,  Chancellor  Kent 
pleaded  with  the  convention  not  to  "  carry  desolation  through  all  the  fabric 
erected  by  our  fathers,"  or  "put  forth  to  the  world  a  constitution  such  as 
will  merit  the  scorn  of  the  wise  and  tears  of  the  patriot."  In  Virginia 
(1830),  the  contest  was  successful  only  in  slight  degree  because  of  the 
opposition  of  Marshall,  Madison,  and  Randolph, — three  ancient  foes, 
who  now  made  common  cause  for  their  order,  and  succeeded  in  keeping 
80,000  White  citizens  from  the  franchise  till  1850. 

Not  only  was  the  franchise  wider;  it  was  also  used  more 
directly.  In  1800  only  six  of  the  sixteen  States  chose  "elec- 
tors "  by  popular  vote  (§  239) ;  in  1828  Delaware  and  South 
Carolina  were  the  only  two,  out  of  twenty-four,  not  to  do  so, 
and,  after  the  next  election,  Delaware  abandoned  choice  by  the 
legislature. 

Another  change  suited  political  convenience  rather  than  democratic 
principle.     The   "general  ticket"  had  replaced  the  "district"  system 

1  The  significance  of  this  change  in  New  York  is  indicated  by  the  following 
fact  :  in  the  fiercely  contested  campaign  of  1789,  that  State,  with  a  popula- 
tion of  324,270,  cast  only  12,300  votes ;  after  1830,  the  proportion  was  seven 
times  as  large. 

2  §§  137,  153, 154, 156,  167,  172,  185,  209,  224  may  well  be  reviewed  for  state- 
ments bearing  upon  previous  constitutions. 


3 


d 

NEW  POSITION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  501 

in  choosing  electors  (§  212).     This  method  deprives  the  minority  within 
each  State  of  all  representation. 

Virginia  made  the  change  in  1800,  to  secure  her  solid  vote  to  Jefferson  ; 
and  Jefferson  acquiesced  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  political  necessity, 
when  Federalist  States  were  doing  the  same  and  worse  things  (§  239). 
He  advised,  however,  a  constitutional  amendment  to  compel  the  district 
system;  and  such  an  amendment  was  agitated  until  1824.1 


& 


300.  The  " Sovereign  People"  and  its  "Tribune"  {New  Position 
of  the  Presidency).  —  The  wider  franchise,  and  its  more  direct 
exercise,  placed  the  President  in  a  new  light,  and  gave  him 
new  powers.  He  was  no  longer,  even  in  theory,  merely  the 
choice  of  a  select  coterie.  Jackson's  friends  called  him  "  the 
chosen  Tribune  of  the  People."  The  Nation  found  it  easier  to 
express  its  will,  and  to  place  responsibility,  in  one  man  voted 
for  over  the  whole  Union,  than  in  a  Congress  elected  by  hun- 
dreds of  different  localities  and  representing  local  interests.2 

In  the  break-up  of  the  old  Jeffersonian  Democracy  into  two  parties, 
Jacksonian  Democracy  finally  managed  to  take  to  itself  the  prestige  and 
traditions  of  Jefferson's  name,  mainly,  it  appears,  because  it  stood  in 
some  measure  for  the  old  Jefferson  doctrine  of  putting  emphasis  upon 
States  Rights,  while  the  party  of  Adams  and  Clay  was  emphasizing 

1  The  general  ticket  has  now  come  to  seem,  to  many  people,  the  only  con- 
stitutional method.  In  1892  Michigan,  usually  Republican,  chanced  to  have  a 
Democratic  legislature.  To  save  some  part  of  the  electoral  vote  in  the  com- 
ing election,  this  legislature  enacted  a  law  providing  for  choice  of  electors  by 
the  ancient  method  of  districts.  The  matter  went  to  the  Supreme  Court 
before  the  opposing  party  would  acquiesce  in  the  constitutionality  of  such  a 
measure. 

2  In  England,  at  just  this  period,  democracy  was  conquering  hereditary 
executive  prerogative  by  subordinating  it  to  Parliament  {Modern  History, 
§§  581,  532).  In  America,  democracy  seized  executive  prerogative  directly  by 
making  it  truly  elective  and  so  responsive  to  popular  will. 

The  new  importance  of  the  Presidency  was  promptly  reflected  in  the  popu- 
lar vote.  Before  1828,  even  in  States  where  electors  were  chosen  by  the  people, 
the  vote  for  them  had  been  much  smaller  than  for  Congressmen  or  for  State 
officers.  In  1824  such  States  cast  352,000  votes  for  electors  ;  in  1828  the  same 
States  cast  three  times  that  number.  New  Hampshire  increased  her  vote 
from  4750  to  45,000;  Connecticut  doubled  her  vote;  and  the  great  States  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  showed  a  gain  of  nearly  300  per  cent.  Since  that  time 
the  Presidential  vote  leads  all  others. 


502  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

Nationalism.  But  Jeffersonian  Democracy  and  Jacksonian  Democracy 
were  at  opposite  poles  in  their  attitude  toward  government  in  general. 
The  one  had  feared  government ;  the  other  was  eager  to  make  use  of  it. 
The  one  taught  that  people  must  be  governed  as  little  as  possible ;  the 
other,  that  the  people  might  govern  as  much  as  they  wished.  At  last 
democracy  had  found  its  power ;  and,  intoxicated  with  that  new  sense, 
it  inclined  to  insist  not  only  that  majorities  were  all-powerful,  but  also 
that  they  were  always  right.     "  Vox  populi,  vox  Dei !  " 

Andrew  Jackson  dominated  America  for  twelve  years  (1829-1841),  for 
his  control  reached  over  into  the  administration  of  his  successor  and 
political  heir,  Van  Buren.  He  was  just  the  man  to  give  standing  to  this 
new  executive  power,  and  to  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  back  of 
it.  He  was  of  Scotch-Irish  descent,  and  his  boyhood  had  been  passed  in 
a  North  Carolina  backwoods  country,  in  bare  poverty.  Picking  up  some 
necessary  scraps  of  knowledge,  he  removed  to  the  newer  frontier  of 
Tennessee  to  practice  law.  He  was  a  natural  leader  ;  and  his  incisiveness 
and  aggressiveness,  rather  than  ambition,  forced  him  to  the  front. 
Tennessee  sent  him  as  her  first  Representative  to  Congress, — for  which 
life  at  that  time  he  seems  to  have  been  little  fitted.  Gallatin  noticed  him 
only  for  his  uncouth  dress  and  manner,  — unkept  hair  tied  in  an  eel-skin 
cue, — and  Jefferson  was  disgusted  by  the  "passion"  that  "choked  his 
utterance." 

Soon,  however,  Jackson  found  his  place  as  military  leader  and  Indian 
fighter ;  and  he  came  back  to  political  leadership  as  a  more  imposing  fig- 
ure,—  the  natural  spokesman  of  western  democracy.  "Old  Hickory" 
remained  spare  in  person,  with  the  active  and  abstemious  living  of  the 
frontier ;  his  hair  was  now  a  silvered  mane  ;  his  manner  marked  by  a 
stately  dignity  and,  toward  all  women,  by  true  courtliness.  Beneath  this 
exterior,  he  remained  as  pugnacious  and  fearless  and  self-confident  as 
ever  ;  apt  to  jump  to  conclusions  and  stubborn  in  clinging  to  them  ;  *  sure 
of  his  own  good  intentions,  and,  with  somewhat  less  reason,  of  his  good 
judgment ;  trusting  his  friends  (not  always  wisely  chosen)  as  himself ; 
and  moved  by  an  unconscious  vanity  that  made  it  easy  for  shrewd  men  to 
play  upon  him  ;  but,  withal,  with  sound  democratic  instincts,  hating 
monopoly  and  distrusting  commercial  greed  and  all  appeals  from  it  for 
alliance  with  the  government,  and  believing  devotedly  in  the  "sovereignty 
of  the  people,"  a  sovereign  who  "  could  do  no  wrong." 

1 A  choice  bit  of  contemporary  satire  makes  him  say,  "  It  has  always  bin 
my  way,  when  I  git  a  notion,  to  stick  to  it  till  it  dies  a  natural  death ;  and  the 
more  folks  talk  agin  my  notions,  the  more  I  stick  to  'em." 


t) 


■ 

GROWTH  OF  THE  VETO  503 

301.  Growth  of  the  Veto.  — In  some  peculiarities,  "  the  Reign 
of  Andrew  Jackson  "  owed  its  characteristics  to  the  personal 
inclinations  of  the  man.  Thus,  for  a  time,  Cabinet  meetings 
ceased,  in  favor  of  a  group  of  unofficial  advisors  and  old  asso- 
ciates, whom  the  opposition  press  quickly  dubbed  "  the  Kitchen 
Cabinet."  But  in  its  bigger  aspects  the  change  was  more 
fundamental.  As  the  more  express  embodiment  of  the  nation's 
will,  it  was  natural  and  inevitable  for  Presidents  to  assume 
new  power  over  Congress  ;  and  all  strong  Presidents  since  1828 
have  felt  themselves  rightly  endowed  with  authority  never 
claimed  by  the  earlier  executives  of  the  Union. 

The  most  important  phase  of  this  new  power  has  been  the  President's 
giving  direction  to  national  policy,  and  to  Congressional  legislation.  The 
means  to  this  end  have  been  the  President's  control  of  patronage  and  his 
increased  use  of  the  veto.  The  preceding  six  Presidents  together  had 
vetoed  nine  bills  (all  on  constitutional  grounds)  ;  Jackson  hailed  twelve 
veto  messages  upon  the  astounded  Congress,  to  influence  general  policy, 
besides  using  freely  the  "  pocket  veto,"  permitted  by  the  Constitution 
(§§  i53>  156  a),  but  never  before  exercised. 

Strangely  enough,  in  the  matter  on  which  the  most  vetoes  were  spent, 
the  President  failed  of  his  will.  Jackson  was  opposed  to  "internal  im- 
provements1' at  national  expense;  and  most  of  his  vetoes,  with  all  the 
pocket  vetoes,  were  used  to  defeat  appropriations  for  such  purposes.  He 
elaborated  a  theory  that  appropriations  were  proper  only  for  improvements 
general  in  character,  not  local.  But  the  distinction  was  difficult  to  apply ; 
and  Congress  met  it  by  attaching  internal-improvement  appropriations, 
as  "riders,"  to  the  appropriation  bills  necessary  to  support  the  govern- 
ment, so  as  to  make  veto  impossible.  In  all,  more  than  ten  millions 
of  dollars  were  devoted  to  internal  improvements  in  Jackson's  eight 
years, —  double  the  rate  even  of  Adams'  time.1 

302.  The  Spoils  System.  —  Since  Jefferson's  election  in  1800, 
removal  from  office  had  not  again  become  a  burning  question. 

1  Canals  and  roads  were  no  longer  built  at  Government  expense,  since  rail- 
ways had  now  replaced  these  means  of  communication  in  importance.  Ap- 
propriations for  internal  improvements  took  the  form  (since  maintained)  of 
a  River  and  Harbor  Bill.  Harbor  improvement  had  become  of  pressing 
necessity,  because  of  the  increase  in  the  size  and  draft  of  vessels. 


504  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

There  had  been  no  change  of  party,  and,  until  1824,  no  factional 
contest  within  the  dominant  party.  In  1820  Senator  Crawford 
of  Georgia  had  secured  a  "  four-year  tenure-of -office  bill,"  pro- 
viding that  a  great  number  of  offices  should  thereafter  always 
become  vacant  four  years  after  appointment.1  Adams,  with 
high-minded  dignity,  refused  to  take  advantage  of  this  legal  op- 
portunity to  punish  adversaries  and  hire  supporters.  Instead, 
he  reappointed  all  fit  officials  affected  by  the  law,  and  made 
altogether  only  twelve  removals  during  his  term.  But  a 
weapon  had  been  forged  for  less  scrupulous  men. 

Jackson,  indeed,  needed  no  new  weapon  :  the  powers  of  the  President 
under  the  Constitution  were  enough  for  him.  His  enemies  were,  to  his 
mind,  the  nation's  enemies,  to  be  punished;  and  he  was  controlled  by 
friends  who  brazenly  proclaimed  the  doctrine,  "  To  the  victors  belong  the 
spoils  of  the  enemy."  2 

The  first  sin  of  the  new  democracy  was  its  wrong  attitude  on  this 
matter.  Jackson  men  from  distant  States  hastened  to  the  Capital  to 
attend  the  inauguration  and  press  claims  to  appointments.  Never  had 
Washington  seen  such  a  horde  of  hungry  politicians.3  In  the  preceding 
forty  years  of  the  government,  there  had  been  less  than  two  hundred  re- 
movals from  office  for  all  causes.  In  his  first  year,  Jackson  made  two 
thousand.  But  this  was  far  too  moderate  to  content  the  multitude.  The 
policy  of  spoils  was  the  Nation's  blunder,  not  merely  the  President's ;  and 
the  Nation  was  to  be  shackled  by  it  for  more  than  a  generation. 

303.  Executive,  Legislature,  and  Spoils,  in  States  and  Local 
Units.  —  Much  the  same  reasons  that  exalted  President  over  Congress 
exalted  also  State  governor  and  city  mayor  over  legislature  and  council. 

1  The  excuse  for  this  law  was  the  need  to  prevent  the  growth  of  bureaucracy 
and  to  give  opportunity  for  wholesome  "  rotation  in  office."  In  these 
principles,  as  opposed  to  the  older  idea  that  an  officeholder  had  a  vested 
property  interest  in  his  office,  Jackson  fully  agreed. 

2  The  phrase  was  Senator  Marcy's  of  New  York. 

8  McMaster  (V,  521  ff.)  gives  a  graphic  picture.  There  is  a  briefer  but  more 
caustic  one  in  McLaughlin's  Cass  (136, 137) :  "  The  scrambling,  punch-drinking 
mob  which  invaded  Washington  at  the  inauguration,  crowding  and  pushing 
into  the  White  House,  tipping  over  tubs  of  punch  and  buckets  of  ices,  standing 
with  muddy,  hobnailed  shoes  on  the  damask  furniture,  thrusting  themselves 
into  the  nooks  and  corners  of  the  executive  mansion  with  the  air  of  co- 
partners, who  at  last  had  an  opportunity  to  take  account  of  the  assets  of  the 
firm.  ..." 


THE   SPOILS  SYSTEM  505 

The  executive  branch  of  government,  of  which  the  "Fathers  "  were  espe- 
cially jealous,  began  now  to  be  magnified  in  America  over  the  legislative. 

Before  Jackson  gave  new  prominence  to  the  executive  veto,  seven 
States  had  joined  New  York  and  Massachusetts  (§153)  in  placing  that 
power  in  their  constitutions.  Soon  it  became  practically  universal. 
Only  three  States  at  present  (1912)  fail  to  provide  it  in  some  form,  — 
though  several  make  it  only  a  means  to  secure  reconsideration  by  the 
legislature,  and  others  permit  it  to  be  overruled  by  less  than  the  custom- 
ary two-thirds  vote.  The  pocket  veto,  too,  is  almost  universal.  About 
a  third  of  the  States  have  made  the  veto  still  more  effective  in  practice 
by  authorizing  the  executive  to  veto  single  items  of  appropriation  bills. 
This  tendency  is  recognized  as  a  needed  reform  in  other  States,  to 
counteract  the  ease  with  which  a  committee  sometimes  slips  into  a 
necessary  "Omnibus  Bill"  certain  unconsidered  trifles,  secured  by  cor- 
rupt or  log-rolling  influences. 

City  governments  have  commonly  given  to  their  mayors  a  veto  power 
corresponding  to  that  of  the  State  governor;  and  both  city  and  State 
have  developed  the  insidious  poison  of  the  spoils  system. 

In  the  early  State  constitutions,  the  legislature  was  exalted  over  all 
other  parts  of  government.  But  by  1830,  democracy  had  begun  to  realize 
dimly  its  imperfect  control  over  representative  legislatures,  and  to  resent 
it ;  and  a  tendency  to  subordinate  the  legislative  branch  of  State  govern- 
ments to  the  executive  had  begun.  This  tendency,  which  grew  more  and 
more  marked  for  half  a  century,  was  manifested  in  other  ways  besides  the 
growth  of  the  executive  veto  :  (1)  After  the  Civil  War,  in  particular, 
constitutions  for  new  States  and  new  constitutions  for  old  States  swelled 
in  bulk,  until  the  usual  length  was  many  times  that  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution or  of  any  one  of  the  first  State  constitutions.  This  additional 
matter  consisted  largely  of  restrictions,  direct  and  indirect,  upon  the 
legislature.  Multitudes  of  matters  which  formerly  had  been  left  to  legis- 
lative discretion  were  now  put  into  the  constitution,  to  be  altered  only  by 
the  process  of  constitutional  amendment,  where  the  people  had  a  referen- 
dum. (2)  The  length  of  legislative  sessions  was  usually  limited  by  con- 
stitutional provisions.  (3)  In  most  States  (all  but  six  in  1912),  the 
session  became  a  biennial  affair  instead  of  annual.1 

1  During  this  period  of  the  decadence  of  State  legislatures,  public  opinion, 
both  in  earnest  and  in  semi-comic  humor,  seems  to  have  looked  upon  each 
session  of  a  legislature  as  a  necessary  evil.  The  close  of  a  session  usually 
called  forth  a  general  sigh  of  relief. 


506  JACKSON  IAN  DEMOCRACY 

Exercise.  — 

a.  In  what  way  does  the  constitution  of  your  State  place  limitations 
on  the  legislature  ?     What  reason  can  you  discover  for  each  limitation  ? 

If  the  Exercise  in  §  156  has  not  previously  been  completed,  it  should 
now  be  finished  and  reviewed. 

b.  The  usual  list  of  elective  administrative  officers,  besides  the  gov- 
ernor, is  as  follows  :  lieutenant  governor  (who,  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Federal  Vice  President,  is  the  presiding  officer  of  the  State  senate)  ;  sec- 
retary of  State  (little  more  than  a  keeper  of  public  records)  ;  ■amlWfr  or 
comptroller,  with  supervision  over  the  expenditure  of  State  funds  and  the 
selling  or  leasing  of  State  lands,  etc.  ;  treasurer,  who  keeps  the  State  • 
funds ;  attorney  general,  the  legal  advisor  of  the  governor  and  other 
executive  officers,  and  the  counsel  for  the  State  in  legal  action.  A  State 
Board  of  Education  or  a  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
(usually  appointed)  has  general  supervision  over  the  educational  interests 
and  over  the  enforcement  of  school  laws.  There  are  usually  a  number  of 
other  boards  or  bureaus  or  commissions  (or  else  single  commissioners),  —  *  1_# 
railway,  labbr,  heJBWmnsurance,  public  works,  exanailTrag-^baa^rds  (to*"^T 
license  practitionenT^fnraw,  medicine^pnarmacy,  and  dentistry),  with 
far-reaching  influence  over  public  welfare.  These  boards  are  usually  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor,  subject  to  confirmation  by  two  thirds  the  State 
senate. 

c.  Make  a  table  showing  executive  and  administrative  officers  and 
boards  of  your  State, — how  elected  or  appointed,  terms  of  office,  and 
salaries.  Give  examples  of  beneficent  action  in  your  State  in  recent  years 
by  administrative  boards  or  officers.  (One  such  example  a  week  might 
well  be  called  for.)  What  penal,  reformatory,  and  charitable  institutions 
are  maintained  in  your  State,  and  how  are  they  governed.  (Let  each  one 
be  the  subject  of  a  brief  "special  report."  The  school  should  have  the 
printed  annual  reports  of  such  institutions  in  its  library.) 

—  B.    "  Protection  "  and  "  Nullification  " 

304.  The  Question  Stated.— The  "tariff  of  abominations " 
(§  279)  had  called  out  prompt  and  vigorous  protests  from  five 
State  legislatures  in  trie  South,  and  no  small  talk  of  secession. 
Calhoun  came  forward  with  what  he  thought  a  milder  remedy 
in  his  Exposition  in  the  summer  of  1828. 

Calhoun  was  of  Scotch-Irish  descent  and  of  stern  Calvinistic  training. 
He  had  been  Secretary  of  War  under  Monroe,  and  Vice  President  with 


PROTECTION  AND  NULLIFICATION  507 

Adams,  and  had  just  been  reelected  to  that  office.  He  was  now  a  very 
different  Calhoun  from  the  ardent  young  Nationalist  of  1816,  who  had 
favored  internal  improvements,  a  Bank,  and  protective  tariffs.  On  each 
of  these  points  he  had  reversed  his  position,  to  go  with  his  section.  He 
still  loved  the  Union  devotedly  ;  but  instead  of  placing  emphasis  now  on 
Nationality,  he  placed  it  on  the  necessity  of  recognizing  State  sovereignty 
in  order  to  preserve  any  nation  at  all.  In  1816  he  had  thrust  aside  con- 
stitutional refinements  disdainfully  :  in  1828  he  took  refuge  in  them  and 
used  them  with  rare  skill  and  keen  logic. 

Calhoun's  Exposition  (with  later  elaborations)  set  forth  :  (i)  the  argu- 
ment that  the  tariff  was  ruinous  to  the  South;  (2)  that  "protection" 
was  unconstitutional ;  (3)  that,  in  the  case  of  an  Act  so  injurious  and 
unconstitutional,  any  State  had  a  constitutional  right  peacefully  to  nullify 
the  law  within  her  borders,  until  Congress  should  appeal  to  the  States  — 
and  be  sustained  by  three  fourths  of  them  —  the  number  necessary  to 
amend  the  Constitution  and  therefore  competent  to  say  what  was  and 
was  not  constitutional ;  and  (4)  a  practical  method  of  attempting  such 
nullification  by  referring  it  to  a  representative  convention  of  the  State  called 
especially  to  decide  upon  the  matter. 

305.  The  Great  Debate.  —  South  Carolina  did  not  press  the 
matter  at  once,  because  she  drew  hope  of  relief  from  the  election 
of  Jackson.  He  was  supposed  to  dislike  the  tariff  and  to 
sympathize  with  State  sovereignty ;  and  his  brief  inaugu- 
ral declared  his  wish  to  show  "a  proper  respect  for  the 
sovereign  members  of  our  Union."  Then  a  few  months  later, 
the  question  was  argued  in  a  great  debate  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  (January  19-29,  1830). 

Senator  Foote  had  moved  a  resolution  to  restrict  somewhat 
the  sale  of  public  lands.  The  Western  States  thought  this  an 
improper  interference  with  their  development,  if  not  with  their 
constitutional  rights ;  and  there  followed  the  most  famous  con- 
stitutional debate  in  our  history,  —  ranging  far  from  the  original 
matter.  Senator  Hayne  of  South  Carolina  supported  the 
doctrine  of  Calhoun's  Exposition.  Daniel  Webster  replied  in 
two  magnificent  orations,  laying  bare  the  practical' absurdity 
of  nullification  and  setting  forth,  in  more  vivid  terms  than  had 
ever  been  done  before,  the  doctrine  of  American  Nationality. 


tL*~~.  \^<z-    '     '*/*« 


508  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

"  Between  submission  to  the  laws  .  .  .  and  open  resistance,  which  is 
.  .  .  rebellion.  .  .  there  is  no  middle  ground.  Nullification,  in  operation , 
would  be  treason'1''  ;  and  grimly  the  penalty  was  suggested:  "it  is  an 
awkward  business,  this  dying  without  touching  the  ground."  Then 
a  brilliant  picture  of  the  manifold  benefits  of  the  Union  closed  with  the 
splendid  flight  of  eloquence  which  was  to  count  in  years  to  come  for  more 
than  argument  and  more  than  armies :  — 

"  While  the  Union  lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  gratifying  prospects 
spread  out  before  us,  for  us  and  our  children.  Beyond  that,  I  seek  not 
to  penetrate  the  veil.  When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned  to  behold,  for  the 
last  time,  the  sun  in  heaven,  may  I  not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and 
dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glorious  Union  ;  on  States  dissevered,  dis- 
cordant, belligerent ;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may 
be,  in  fraternal  blood  !  Let  their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance,  rather, 
behold  the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  republic,  now  known  and  honored 
throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies 
streaming  in  their  original  lustre,  not  a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  not  a 
single  star  obscured,  bearing  for  its  motto  no  such  miserable  interrogatory 
as,  What  is  all  this  worth  ?  Nor  those  other  words  of  delusion  and  folly, 
Liberty  first,  and  Union  afterwards :  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in 
characters  of  living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float  over 
the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every  wind  under  the  whole  heavens, 
that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American  heart — Liberty  and 
Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable  !  " 

Webster  held  that  the  Constitution  made  us  a  Nation.  To  strengthen 
this  position,  he  argued  that  as  one  nation  "  we  the  people  of  the  United 
States  "  had  made  the  Constitution.  Here  facts  were  against  him;  but 
this  historical  part  of  his  plea  was  really  immaterial.  The  vital  thing 
was  not  the  theory  of  union  held  by  a  departed  generation,  but  the  will 
and  needs  of  the  throbbing  present.  And  when  Webster  argued  that  the 
United  States  was  now  one  Nation,  and  must  so  continue,  he  gave  death- 
less form  and  force  to  a  truth  which,  inarticulate  before,  had  yet  been 
growing  resistless  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Northern  and  progressive 
part  cf  the  Union. 

Says  Woodrow  Wilson  (Division  and  Reunion,  44-47)  :  "  The  ground 
which  Webster  took,  in  short,  was  new  ground  ;  that  which  Hayne 
occupied,  old  ground.  ...  It  seems  impossible  to  deny  that  the  argument 
of  Hayne  contained  much  more  nearly  the  sentiment  of  1787-89.  .  .  . 
But  Webster's  position  was  one  toward  which  the  greater  part  of  the 
nation  was  steadily  advancing,  while  Hayne's  position  was  one  which  the 


PROTECTION  AND  NULLIFICATION  509 

\J 

South  would  presently  stand  quite  alone  in  occupying.  Conditions  had 
changed  in  the  North  .  .  .  but  the  conditions  of  the  South,  whether  politi- 
cal or  economic,  had  remained  the  same,  and  political  opinion  had  re- 
mained stationary  with  them." 

And  Professor  MacDonald  (Jacksonian  Democracy,  111):  "Hayne 
argued  for  a  theory,  which,  however  once  widely  held,  had  been  outgrown, 
and  which  could  not  under  any  circumstances  be  made  to  work.  Webster 
argued  for  a  theory,  which,  though  unhistorical  in  the  form  in  which  he 
presented  it,  nevertheless  gave  the  Federal  government  ground  on  which 
to  stand.  The  one  .  .  .  looked  to  the  past,  the  other  to  the  present  and 
future.  Both  were  statesmen  ;  both  loved  their  country  :  but  Hayne 
would  call  a  halt,  while  Webster  would  march  on." 

Cf.  also  §  211. 

The  Conflict.  — The  Southern  leaders  arranged  a  Jeffer- 
son Day  banquet  (April  13,  1830),  at  which  the  toasts  were 
saturated  with  State  sovereignty  and  nullification  doctrine. 
President  Jackson,  the  guest  of  honor,  whom  the  States-sover- 
eignty men  had  hoped  to  draw  to  their  side,  challenged  their 
sentiments  boldly  by  proposing  the  toast  —  "  Our  Federal 
Union :  it  must  be  preserved  " ;  and,  during  succeeding  months, 
he  took  advantage  of  several  semi-public  opportunities  to  make 
known  his  determination  to  meet  nullification  with  force. 

Jackson,  however,  did  recommend  revision  and  reduction 
of  the  tariff ;  and  a  "  new  tariff  of  1832  "  removed  the  absurd 
atrocities  of  1828,  returning  to  about  the  basis  of  1824.  This 
action,  however,  seemed  to  the  South  only  to  strengthen  the 
principle  of  protection,  and  to  afford  no  real  relief  to  their 
section.  The  South  Carolina  Congressmen  now  called  upon 
their  people  to  decide  "  whether  the  rights  and  liberties  which 
you  received  as  a  precious  inheritance  from  an  illustrious 
ancestry  shall  be  surrendered  tamely  ...  or  transmitted  un- 
diminished to  your  posterity.''  A  strenuous  campaign  elected 
a  legislature  which  by  large  majorities  called  a  convention. 
Jackson,  meanwhile,  strengthened  the  Federal  garrison  at  Fort 
Moultrie  (in  Charleston  harbor).  After  five  days  of  delibera- 
tion, the  convention  (November  19)  by  vote  of  136  to  26, 
adopted  the  famous  Ordinance  of  Nullification,  declaring  the 


510  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

tariff  laws  void  within  South  Carolina,  calling  upon  the  legisla- 
ture to  make  necessary  provision  to  prevent  their  operation, 
and  threatening  secession  in  case  the  Federal  government 
should  attempt  further  to  enforce  them.1 

307.  The  Compromise  of  1833.  — December  10,  1833,  Jackson 
issued  an  admirable  proclamation  to  the  people  of  South  Caro- 
lina, warning  them  of  the  peril  into  which  they  were  running, 
and  affirming  his  determination  to  enforce  the  laws.  But 
to  Congress,  a  few  day^  before,  he  had  recommended  further 
revision  of  the  tariff ;  and  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  instigated 
by  members  of  the  Cabinet,  stood  forth  now  as  a  mediator, 
suggesting  compromise.  Nullification  was  to  have  gone  into 
effect  on  February  1,  1833 ;  but,  under  these  conditions,  lead- 
ing citizens  of  South  Carolina  hastily  and  rather  informally 
arranged  to  defer  the  date,  in  order  to  await  the  outcome  of 
compromise  measures  in  Congress.  Clay,  who  felt  the  whole 
protective  system  endangered,  joined  hands  with  Calhoun  and 
fathered  a  tariff  bill  acceptable  to  South  Carolina, — providing 
for  a  horizontal  reduction  of  the  duties  in  the  tariff  of  1832,  to 
be  made  gradually,  so  that  by  1842  no  rate  should  exceed  20 
per  cent.  This  was  a  return  to  something  lower  than  the 
practice  in  1816. 

On  March  1  both  this  compromise  and  the  Force  Bill  (to 
supply  the  President  with  resources  to  bring  the  rebellious  State 
to  obedience)  passed  Congress,  and  the  President  took  what 
satisfaction  he  could  get  by  signing  the  Force  Bill  a  few 
minutes  sooner  than  the  other.  March  11,  the  South  Carolina 
convention  reassembled  and  rescinded  the  nullification  ordi- 
nance, passing  at  the  same  time  an  empty  nullification  of  the 
Force  Bill. 

Victory  was  claimed  by  both  sides.  Says  MacDonald  (Jacksonian 
Democracy,  168)  :  "  The  greater  victory  lay  with  South  Carolina.  Alone, 
unaided  by  its  co-States,  it  had  challenged  the  constitutionality  of  a 
Federal  policy,  formally  refused  longer  to  submit  to  it,  and  prepared  to 

1  MacDonald 's  Select  Documents,  268-271. 


PROTECTION  AND   NULLIFICATION  511 

resist  by  force  of  arms.  In  response,  the  President  had  declared  that 
the  law  must  be  obeyed,  and  had  taken  steps  to  secure  obedience,  if 
necessary,  by  force.  But  before  the  test  came,  Congress  had  pushed 
through  in  two  weeks  a  compromise  measure  which  would  shortly  reduce 
duties  to  a  revenue  basis." 

308.  Excursus :  Nullification  permitted  in  Georgia.  —  What- 
ever victory  the  President  might  possibly  have  boasted  in 
South  Carolina  he  weakened  by  permitting  Georgia  unchal- 
lenged to  defy  the  Supreme  Court.  Georgia  had  enacted  laws 
regarding  certain  lands  which  United  States  treaties  declared 
to  be  Indian  lands.  A  missionary  disregarded  these  pretended 
laws ;  and  a  Georgia  court  sentenced  him  to  imprisonment  for 
four  years  at  hard  labor.  In  March,  1832,  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  declared  the  Georgia  statute  void  and 
ordered  the  release  of  the  prisoner.  "  Well,"  exclaimed  Jack- 
son, "John  Marshall  has  made  his  decision.  Now  let  him 
enforce  it."  The  missionary  remained  in  prison.  With  the 
full  approval  of  the  President,  Georgia  nullified  a  treaty  of  the 
United  States  and  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  at  the  very 
time  that  South  Carolina  was  threatened  for  trying  to  nullify 
an  act  of  Congress.  In  no  small  measure  the  explanation  was, 
that  in  the  one  case  Jackson  hated  Indians,  while  in  the  other 
case  he  hated  Calhoun  quite  as  cordially.1  Moreover,  Georgia's 
success  humiliated  only  John  Marshall,  whom  Jackson  dis- 
liked :  South  Carolina  would  have  humiliated  the  authority  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  — who  happened  just  then 
to  be  Andrew  Jackson. 


1  Jackson  had  just  discovered  that,  years  before,  Calhoun  had  tried  to 
persuade  Monroe's  Cabinet  to  have  him  (Jackson)  censured  for  exceeding  his 
military  authority  (Special  Report  and  §  298,  note).  Moreover,  a  frontiersman 
like  Jackson  was  certain  to  sympathize  with  Georgia's  attempts  to  rid  her 
soil  of  the  Indians.  Jackson  urged  Congress  repeatedly  to  remove  all  Indian 
tribes  to  the  "Indian  Territory"  beyond  the  Mississippi.  This  policy  was 
finally  adopted  in  his  second  administration,  giving  rise  to  the  brief  "  Black 
Hawk  War  "  in  the  Northwest,  and  to  the  long-drawn-out  Seminole  War  in 
the  Everglades  of  Florida. 


512  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

C.   The  Government  and  the  Bank 

309.  Jackson's   Challenge:  —  The  National   Bank   of   1816, 

like  its  predecessor  of  1791,  was  a  huge  monopoly,  with  special 
privileges  not  open  to  other  individuals  or  corporations.1  It 
had  vast  power  also  over_the  small  State-Banks  and  over  the 
business  of  the  country.  True  it  had  used  this  power  to  the 
advantage  of  the  country,  in  ways  that  President  Jackson  was 
wholly  unfitted  to  appreciate.  But  the  Bank  also  had  oppor- 
tunities to  exercise  tremendous  political  influence.  So  far, 
apparently,  it  had  never  used  these  opportunities ;  but  Jack- 
son felt  the  danger  vividly,  and,  with  •  perfectly  wholesome 
instinct,  he  distrusted  the  "  un-American  monopoly "  and  the 
intrusion  of  "  the  money  power  "  into  politics. 

The  Bank's  charter  was  not  to  expire  until  1836  (after  the 
period  for  which  Jackson  had  first  been  elected) ;  but  in  his 
first  message,  the  President  called  attention  to  that  approach- 
ing event  and  questioned  the  advisability  of  rechartering  an 
institution  of  such  dubious  constitutionality  or  utility.  Clay 
seized  the  chance  to  array  the  Bank  against  Jackson,  and 
persuaded  the  managers  to  ask  Congress  at  once  for  a  re- 
newal of  the  charter.  Congress  was  not  yet  in  the  hands  of 
Jackson's  followers,  and  the  bill  passed.  Jackson  vetoed  it  in 
a  message  that  made  an  admirable  campaign  document.  In 
the  election  of  1832  the  foremost  issue  was  Jackson  or  the 
Bank.  The  workingmen  of  the  Eastern  cities  declared  vehe- 
mently against  monopolies  (§  290,  note),  and  the  West  already 
hated  banks  and  loved  Jackson.  The  Bank  did  now  go  into 
politics ;  but  Jackson  was  reelected  by  219  votes  to  49  for 
Clay. 

310.  The  Election  of  1832  is  marked  by  new  party  names, 
by  the  first  "  third  party,  "  and  by  new  party  machinery.  Jack- 
son men  now   called   themselves    Democrats.      The  National 

1  Any  body  of  men  with  resources  sufficient  to  buy  a  prescribed  amount  of 
United  States  bonds  can  open  a  "  national  bank  "  under  our  present  system. 
The  government  is  not  a  partner  in  these  institutions. 


JACKSON  AND  THE  BANK  513 

Republicans,  complaining  bitterly  of  Jackson's  vetoes  and  of 
his  dominance  over  Congress,  took  the  name  Whig  —  which  in 
England  had  long  indicated  the  party  opposed  to  rOyal  preroga- 
tive.    The  u  third  party  "  was  the  Anti-Masons.1 

The  division  into  parties  had  made  it  advisable  to  agree 
upon  candidates  for  President  in  advance  of  the  campaign,  — 
something  never  contemplated  by  the  Constitution.  This,  we 
have  seen,  was  accomplished  for  a  while  by  the  Congressional 
caucus  (§  227  note).  But  at  such  a  caucus,  the  members  were 
Congressmen  who  had  been  chosen  two  years  before,  on  wholly 
different  issues.  Men  resented  it  that  such  uncommissioned 
"  representatives  "  should  presume  to  speak  for  the  party  on 
this  vital  matter.  Moreover,  the  new  conception  of  the  Presi- 
dent as  the  special  " Representative  of  the  Nation"  (§  300) 
made  it  imperative  that  the  people  should  have  more  direct 
control  in  the  nomination.  The  repute  of  "  aristocratic  King 
Caucus  "  had  been  dissipated  finally  in  the  campaign  of  1824 
(§  281) ;  but  nomination  by  State  legislatures  was  little  better, 
and  it  had  the  special  disadvantage  that  it  represented  the 
differing  wills  of  localities  rather  than  the  united  will  of  a 
national  party. 

Indeed,  the  same  causes  which  discredited  the  Congressional  caucus 
for  the  Nation  had  also  discredited  legislative  caucuses  for  nomination 
of  State  officers ; 2  and  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  had  devised  State 

1  In  1826  William  Morgan  had  published  what  he  called  the  secrets  of  the 
Masonic  Order.  Morgan  disappeared,  and  it  was  supposed  that  he  had  been 
abducted  and  perhaps  murdered.  An  indignant  movement  against  secret 
societies  swept  over  the  country ;  and  in  1831  it  had  crystallized  into  a  new 
political  party  pledged  to  oppose  all  Masons  for  office. 

2  The  weak  points  were  :  (1)  the  caucus  was  not  commissioned  for  this 
work  and  so  could  not  command  support  for  its  choice  ;  (2)  in  a  Democratic 
caucus,  for  instance,  there  was  no  voice  from  parts  of  the  State  represented 
at  the  time  in  the  legislature  by  members  of  the  other  political  party.  From 
the  second  consideration  it  is  plain  that  a  minority  party  would  find  the  legis- 
lative caucus  especially  unworkable,  since  its  "caucus"  could  not  claim  to 
speak  for  even  half  the  election  districts  of  the  State.  A  new  party  would 
find  itself  even  less  able  to  use  the  device.  Such  parties,  therefore,  were 
particularly  active  in  creating  the  convention  system  for  State  and  Nation. 


514  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

Nominating  Conventions  made  up  of  representatives  chosen  in  party  gather- 
ings in  the  various  election  districts  of  the  state.  The  next  step  was  to 
extend  this  machinery  to  the  nation.  The  Anti-Masons  did  this  in  1831. 
The  Whigs  followed,  and  the  Democrats  fell  into  line.  A  second  Whig 
convention  in  1832  adopted  the  first  National  "Platform,"  defining  the 
party's  position  on  the  issues  of  the  campaign. 

311.  "Withdrawal  of  Deposits."  —  Jackson  accepted  his  vic- 
tory as  a  verdict  from  the  sovereign  people  against  the  Bank, 
and  hastened  to  destroy  that  institution  even  before  its  charter 
expired.  Under  his  orders,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
began  to  deposit  the  government  funds,  no  longer  with  the 
National  Bank,  but  in  "  pet"  State  banks.1 

The  "Pet  banks"  were  often  weak  institutions,  under  reck- 
less management.  Such  institutions  had  spread  rapidly  in  the 
preceding  five  years,  while  the  country  had  been  sowing  the 
wind  for  another  financial  crash  like  that  of  1819.  A  rage  for 
investment,  beyond  real  resources,  and  for  alluring  speculation 
had  seized  upon  the  optimistic  nation  ;  and  such  operations  were 
being  carried  on  largely  through  credit  loaned  by  these  "wild- 
cat "  banks.  The  action  of  the  Government  intensified  the  evil. 
The  "Pet  banks  n  now  felt  able  to  loan  more  recklessly  than  ever, 
and  easy  borrowers  speculated  and  overinvested  more  freely. 

312.  Distribution  of  the  Surplus.  —  Another  Government 
measure  scattered  the  infection  more  widely.  In  1835  the 
national  debt  was  paid,  and  the  surplus  was  piling  up  at  the 
rate  of  $35,000,000  a  year.     Instead  of  reducing  taxes,2  the 


1  Two  Secretaries  had  to  be  removed  before  the  President  found  one  rash 
enough  so  to  risk  public  funds,  and  public  welfare,  without  Congressional 
authority.  The  Senate,  controlled  still  by  the  Whigs,  entered  upon  its 
Journals  a  formal  censure  of  the  President.  There  followed  a  long  and 
famous  contest,  until  after  many  sessions,  Jackson's  admirers  secured  the 
majority  in  the  Senate  necessary  to  expunge  the  censure  from  the  records. 

The  Bank,  fatally  crippled,  wound  up  its  affairs,  sought  a  new  charter 
under  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  and  became  a  State  Bank. 

2  The  tariff,  it  was  urged,  must  not  be  disturbed,  since  the  existing  law 
was  a  sacred  agreement  between  the  sections,  entered  into  in  1833  to  avoid 
nullification. 


THE  PANIC   OF   1837  515 

Government  decided  to  divide  this  surplus  among  the  States 
(in  proportion  to  their  Congressional  representation).1  This 
money  found  its  way,  as  State  deposits,  into  State  banks  and 
into  the  same  round  of  speculation. 

To  avoid  constitutional  scruples,  this  gift  to  the  States  was  called  a 
"deposit,"  or  a  "loan  without  interest."  The  distribution  was  to  be 
made  quarterly,  beginning  with  January,  1837  ;  but  before  the  fourth 
installment  was  due,  the  "panic  "  had  seized  the  country  and  the  Treas- 
ury was  trying  to  borrow  money  for  necessary  expenses.  No  call  was 
ever  made  upon  the  States  for  a  return  of  the  $  28,000,000  distributed. 

313.  The  "Specie  Circular,"  and  the  " Panic."—  In  the  final 
year  of  his  administration,  Jackson  became  alarmed  at  the 
rapid  sale  of  public  lands  paid  for  in  paper  only;  and  the 
measure  he  took  to  save  the  Treasury  from  loss  hastened  the 
catastrophe.  The  famous  "Specie  Circular"  ordered  United 
States  land  offices  thereafter  to  accept  only  gold  and  silver  in 
payment  for  public  lands  (July,  1836).  This  was  notice  to 
the  country  that  the  vast  bulk  of  its  currency2  was  dubious  in 
value.  Martin  Van  Buren,  Jackson's  faithful  counsellor,  was 
elected  to  the  Presidency  that  summer,  in  time  to  reap  the 
whirlwind.  In  May,  1837,  banks  all  over  the  country  suspended 
specie  payment  or  closed  their  doors.  Gold  and  silver  went 
into  hiding,  and  bank  paper  depreciated  in  fantastic  and  vary- 
ing degrees  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  but  everywhere 
ruinously.  Merchants  failed;  factories  closed  down;  unem- 
ployed thousands  faced  starvation.  Incidentally,  the  first 
Labor  movement  was  crushed  out.  Normal  conditions  were 
not  restored  for  five  years. 

As  in  1819,  the  "  crisis  "  was  world  wide,  and  its  causes  were  the  gen- 
eral disposition  of  business  society  to  invest  beyond  its  means.  The  acts 
of  Jackson's  administration  did  not  cause  the  crash  in  America:  they 
only  hastened  it.     It  is  pretty  well  agreed  that  Jackson's  hostility  to  the 


1  What  provision  in  the  Constitution  suggested  this  ratio  ? 

2  State  banks  issued  notes  in  that  day,  as  they  have  not  dene  since  the 
establishment  of  the  present  national  banking  system  (cf .  §  376) ,  and  paper 
of  different  hanks  therefore  had  different  values. 


516  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

Bank  was  right,  though  some  of  his  measures  against  it  were  high  handed 
and  unwise. 

314.  The  Independent  Treasury. — Van  Buren  saw  his  chance  for 
popular  favor  ruined  by  the  disaster  ;  but  he  met  the  situation  with  calm 
good  sense.  His  message  to  Congress  pointed  out  the  real  causes  of  the 
panic  and  the  slow  road  back  to  prosperity.  Meantime,  for  the  govern- 
ment funds,  he  recommended  an  Independent  Treasury  (independent  of 
all  banks).  In  1840  this  plan  was  adopted,  though  for  some^ears  the 
Whigs  fought  desperately  to  revive  their  pet  scheme  of  a  National  Bank. 
The  Government  built  itself  great  vaults  at  Washington  and  other  leading 
cities ;  and  for  long  the  National  funds  were  handled  solely  in  these, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Treasury  Department.1 

r  D.   Public  Land  Policy 

315.  Two  Opposing  Views  and  Supporting  Forces.  —  The  early 
stages  of  our/land  polic}^  have  been  touched  upon  '(§§  183,  263, 
272  b).  About  1830  began  a  ten  years'  agitation  leading  to  a 
new  phase.  The  earlier  policy  had  regarded  the  National 
Domain  as  a  source  of  revenue :  if  the  lands  were  sold  at  low 
prices,  that  was  done  only  to  sell  more  of  them.  By  1840  the 
nation  had  been  converted  to  the  other  conception,  which  has 
since  dominated  our  policy,  —  namely,  that  the  public  domain 
should  be  regarded  primarily  as  a  source  of  homes  for  the 
people  (§$  316,317,  367). 

The  change  was  the  fruit  of  a  union  between  the  West  and  the 
Labor  forces  in  the  East  (assisted  in  some  degree  by  the  political  alliance 
between  West  and  South).  In  1830  the  sale  of  public  lands  was 
bringing  in  as  much  money  as  the  tariff,  and  the  revenue  was  not  then 
needed  (§312).  The  well-to-do  classes  in  the  Eastern  States  felt  that 
the  lands  ought  to  be  sold  more  slowly,2  so  as,  eventually,  to  produce 
more  revenue  when  it  should  be  more  needed.  The  new  States  resented 
this  position.  It  would  hamper  their  development ;  and  from  the  first 
they  had,  more  or  less  clearly,  stood  for  a  different  policy.  They  looked 
upon  the  public  lands  mainly  as  a  means  of  developing  the  country,  and 

1  Recently  this  practice  has  been  modified  by  the  use  of  certain  national 
banks  (§  376)  as  depositaries. 

2  Cf.  Foote's  Resolution,  referred  to  in  §  395. 


FREE  LAND  517 

were  ready  even  to  give  them  away,  in  order  to  encourage  rapid  settle- 
ment. The  workingmen  of  the  North  Atlantic  section  (§§  287-290) 
threw  their  weight  overwhelmingly  into  the  same  scale.1 

"  The  organized  workingmen  .  .  .  discovered  that  the  reason  why  their 
wages  did  not  rise  and  why  their  strikes  were  ineffective  was  because  es- 
cape from  the  crowded  cities  of  the  east  was  shut  off  by  land  speculation. 
In  their  conventions  and  papers,  therefore,  they  demanded  that  the  public 
lands  should  no  more  be  treated  as  a  source  of  revenue  to  relieve  tax- 
payers, but  as  an  instrument  of  social  reform  to  raise  the  wages  of  labor. 

"  And  when  we,  in  later  years,  refer  to  our  wide  domain  and  our  great 
natural  resources  as  reasons  for  high  wages  in  this  country,  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  access  to  these  resources  was  secured  only  by  agitation  and 
by  act  of  legislation.  Not  merely  as  a  gift  of  nature,  but  mainly  as  a  de- 
mand of  democracy,  have  the  nation's  resources  contributed  to  the  eleva- 
tion of  labor.'1 — Introduction  to  vol.  V  of  Documentary  History  of 
American  Industrial  /Society. 

316.  Proposals  to  cede  to  the  States:  Proceeds  distributed  In- 
stead.—  At  the  opening  of  the  struggle,  Western  States  were 
inclined  to  say  that  the  East  ought  to  have  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  disposition  of  land  in  a  new  State ;  and 
several  legislatures  sent  memorials  to  Congress  urging  that 
each  State  should  be  given  all  the  public  domain  within  its 
borders.  This  feeling  was  natural ;  but  the  plan  would  have 
destroyed  all  uniformity  in  dealing  with  public  lands,  and  it 
would  have  wiped  out  a  powerful  bond  of  National  union,  — 
the  common  interest  in  the  public  domain.  To  head  off  such 
a  measure,  Clay  advocated  that  all  proceeds  of  public-land  sales 
should  be  distributed  among  the  States  in  proportion  to  their  Con- 
gressional representation.  One  of  his  bills  failed  only  through 
a  pocket  "  veto,"  and  the  agitation  was  a  leading  cause  of  the 
more  sweeping  " distribution  of  the  surplus"  in  1836  (§  312). 

1  As  early  as  1828,  before  the  West  itself  was  fully  aroused,  the  Mechanics' 
Free  Press  circulated  a  memorial  for  signature  among  its  constituency,  urg- 
ing Congress  to  place  "  all  the  Public  Lands,  without  the  delay  of  sales,  within 
reach  of  the  people  at  large,  by  right  of  a  title  occupancy  only,"  since  "  the 
present  state  of  affairs  must  lead  to  the  wealth  of  a  few,"  and  since  "  all  men 
.  .  .  have  naturally  a  birth-right  in  the  soil." 


518  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

All  this,  however,  was  a  mere  sop,  and  did  not  touch  the  princi- 
ples at  stake. 

317.  The  Preemption  Act  of  1841.  —  With  the  return  of  pros- 
perity, Clay  renewed  his  efforts  on  a  broader  basis,  and  in 
1841  he  carried  a  law  with  three  features :  (1)  it  divided 
among  the  States  (for  a  limited  time)  90  per  cent  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  land  sales ;  (2)  it  inaugurated  the  policy,  since 
maintained,  of  giving  to  each  new  State 1  a  liberal  amount  of  lands 
to  form  a  State  fund  for  internal  improvements;  (3)  it  contained 
the  famous  provision  which  gave  to  the  whole  law  its  name  of 
The  Preemption  Act. 

Settlers  pushed  on  ahead  of  land-office  sales,  as  squatters.  Later 
came  a  public  sale,  wherein  the  land  office  put  up  each  "forty"  at  auc- 
tion. Speculators  with  Eastern  money  attended,  eager  to  get  choice 
pieces.  The  settler  was  sometimes  outbid  (losing  the  results  of  his 
labor  upon  the  land  and  of  his  foresight  in  selecting  it),  or  was  com- 
pelled to  pay  much  more  than  the  minimum  price  of  $1.25  an  acre,  to 
which  the  frontier  community  felt  that  he  was  entitled.'  The  preemp- 
tion law  provided  simple  means  by  which  the  settler  might  u  file  upon  " 
a  piece  of  land  in  advance  of  the  regular  sale,  and  so  secure  the  privilege 
of  retaining  it,  by  paying  the  minimum  price  at  the  proper  time. 

318.  " Settlers'  Associations"  and  "Squatters'  Rights."  — 
Even  before  the  enactment  of  the  Preemption  law,  its  purpose 
had  been  commonly  secured  by  "  Settlers'  Associations." 
With  the  frontier  instinct  for  rough  justice  even  at  the  expense 
of  legal  forms,  and  with  the  American  capacity  for  combina- 
tion, the  settlers  had  learned  to  band  themselves  together  to 
maintain  "  settlers'  rights  "  at  these  sales. 

The  procedure  was  sometimes  dramatic.  The  Association  "Captain" 
sat  on  the  rude  platform  beside  the  auctioneer,  —  a  list  of  settlers'  claims 


1  Similar  grants  were  provided  also  for  those  of  the  older  States  which  had 
not  already  had  a  liberal  control  over  the  lands  within  their  borders.  This 
grant  was  in  addition  to  the  customanj  grant  of  school  lands  (§§  183  and  265), 
and  followed  out  the  principle  of  the  original  grant  to  Ohio  for  internal  im- 
provements. 


AND  THE  WHIGS  519 

in  hand  and  revolver  in  belt,  with  his  stalwart  associates,  armed,  in  the 
company  about.  When  a  piece  was  put  up  on  which  a  squatter  had  made 
improvements,  the  "Captain"  spoke  the  word  "Settled,"  —  which  was 
notice  to  outsiders  that  the  settler  must  be  permitted  to  bid  it  in  at  the 
minimum  price  without  competition. 

An  incident  of  such  a  sale  in  Illinois  in  the  thirties  has  been  described 
to  the  writer  by  an  eye-witness  who  stood,  a  boy,  on  the  outskirts  of  the  little 
crowd.  The  "Captain"  was  John  Campbell,  a  black-browed  Presbyte- 
rian Scot,  standing  six  feet  four.  In  one  case  an  Eastern  bidder  failed 
to  hear,  or  to  respect,  the  gruff  "  Settled,"  and  made  a  higher  bid.  With 
a  bound  from  the  platform,  Campbell  seized  the  offender  by  the  waist, 
lifted  him  into  the  air,  hurled  him  to  the  ground,  and,  foot  on  the  prostrate 
form  and  cocked  revolver  in  hand,  asked  significantly, —  "Did  we  hear 
you  speak  ?  "  Protestations  of  misunderstanding  and  earnest  disclaimers 
followed  from  the  frightened  man.  Bending  forward,  Campbell  set  him, 
none  too  gently,  on  his  feet,  admonished  him  solemnly,  "  See  that  it 
doesn't  happen  again"  ;  and  returned,  in  unruffled  dignity,  to  the  plat- 
form, where  the  government  official  had  been  quietly  waiting.  The  land 
was  then  knocked  down  to  the  squatter,  and  the  sale  proceeded  decor- 
ously, to  general  satisfaction. 

Exercise.  —  Three  great  beneficent  measures  have  been  mentioned  as 
occurring  under  Van  Buren's  Presidency  —  though  one  of  them  was  a 
Whig,  not  an  administrative,  measure.  Name  them.  Observe  the  influ- 
ence of  the  labor  party  (to  whose  support  Van  Buren  largely  owed  his 
election)  in  them  all. 

E.   Democracy  Accepted 

319.  The  campaign  of  1840  marks  the  final  disappearance  from 
American  politics  of  all  open  belief  in  aristocracy,  and  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  new  (democratic)  plea  for  protection.  The  two 
parties  rivaled  each  other  in  avowals  of  devotion  to  the  will  of 
the  people ;  and  the  Whigs  won  because  their  clamor  was  the 
loudest ;  because  the  Democrats  wrere  discredited  by  the  panic 
of  '37 ;  and,  in  some  degree,  because  the  new  Whig  argument 
for  a  protective  tariff  appealed  to  the  workingmen  of  the 
Eastern  cities. 

The  Whig  candidate  was  William  Henry  Harrison,  the 
victor    of   Tippecanoe.      An    opponent   referred   to   him    con- 


520  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

temptuously  as  a  rude  frontiersman  fit  only  to  live  in  a  log- 
cabin  and  drink  hard  cider.  The  Whigs  turned  this  slur 
into  effective  ammunition.  They  had  no  official  platform,  and 
their  candidate  for  Vice  President,  Tyler,  was  a  States-rights 
Democrat.  But  they  swept  the  country  in  a  "  Hurrah  Boys  " 
campaign  for  "  Tippecanoe  and  Tyler,  too," — the  chief  features 
being  immense  mass  meetings  in  rural  districts  and  torchlight 
processions  in  the  cities,  with  both  sorts  of  entertainment  cen- 
tering round  log  cabins  and  barrels  of  cider. 

320.  "  Protection  "  for  the  Workers.  —  Possibly,  however,  in  account- 
ing in  this  way  for  Whig  success,  it  has  been  customary  to  ignore  over- 
much the  stand  of  the  Whig  leaders  in  the  campaign  for  a  revival  of 
protection.  The  old  demand  (1816-1832)  had  been  aristocratic  —  in  the 
interest  of  wealth.  "  Protect  the  manufacturers,"  it  said,  "  because  they 
have  to  pay  such  high  wages."  The  new  demand,  formulated  by  Horace 
Greeley  and  advocated  by  him  with  religious  fervor  in  his  New  York 
Tribune,  stood  for  social  and  democratic  reform  —  in  the  interest  of  the 
workers.  "  Protect  manufactures,"  it  said,  "  in  order  that  the  workmen 
may  continue  to  get  high  wages." 

Greeley  himself  never  wearied  of  this  theme.  But  almost  at  once  the 
bitterness  of  the  slavery  contest  drew  public  attention  away  from  calm 
consideration  of  any  other  question;  and  the  argument  was  not  duly 
sifted  till  a  much  later  time  (  §  420  ff .).  It  is  significant  of  the  age,  how- 
ever, that  protection,  which  had  been  condemned  and  abandoned  on  the 
old  grounds,  should  have  come  back  to  its  throne  in  the  forties  under 
cover  of  this  idealistic  drapery. 

321.  Failure  of  the  Whig  Program.  —  Harrison  carried  twenty 
States  to  six  for  the  Democrats,  and  his  party  secured  a  work- 
ing majority  in  both  Houses  of  Congress ;  but  the  victory  was 
futile.  Harrison  died  within  a  month  of  the  inauguration; 
and  Tyler  opposed  his  veto  to  the  Whig  measures.  Two  bills 
to  restore  a  United  States  Bank  (in  place  of  the  Independent 
Treasury)  failed  in  this  way  in  August  and  September  of  1841. 
Whig  papers  raised  a  bitter  cry  of  Judas  Iscariot ;  and  every 
member  of  the  Cabinet  resigned  except  Daniel  Webster. 
In  like  manner  the  veto  killed  two  bills  for  an  extreme  protec- 


DORR'S  REBELLION  521 

tive  tariff,  but  a  third  and  more  moderate  measure  received  the 
President's  approval. 

The  compromise  of  1832  had  just  taken  full  effect,  but  it  was  now  at 
once  undone.  The  panic  of  1837  had  depleted  the  treasury  ;  and,  aided 
by  the  cry  for  revenue,  the  high  protective  "  tariff  of  1842  "  was  enacted, 
raising  the  rates  to  about  the  level  of  1832,  —  with  duties  on  iron  running 
as  high  as  79  per  cent. 

This  tariff  of  1842  produced  a  revenue  of  $26,000,000  a  year.  When 
the  Democrats  returned  to  power,  the  Walker  revenue  tariff  of  1846_was 
substituted.  Imports  such  as  coffees  and  teas  and  other  articles  of  com- 
mon use  not  produced  in  the  United  States  were  taxed  very  high,  while 
manufactures  previously  protected  (iron,  wool,  etc.)  were  taxed  only  thirty 
per  cent.  The  measure  was  called  a  free-trade  tariff,  but  it  afforded  a 
moderate  degree  of  protection,  besides  nearly  doubling  the  revenue.  In 
X8Ji7  rates  were  reduced  materially  for  a  time  to  a  real  free-trade  basis. 

Webster  had  kept  his  unpleasant  position  as  secretary  of  State,  spite 
of  Whig  indignation  at  Tyler,  in  order  to  complete  an  important  negotia- 
tion with  England.  Soon  after  the  settlement  of  the  dispute  regarding 
the  St.  Croix  River  (§232),  another  difference  of  opinion  had  arisen  re- 
garding the  northern  boundary  of  Maine  farther  to  the  west.  England 
claimed  one  line,  and  the  United  States  another,  from  different  interpre- 
tations of  the  words  of  the  Treaty  of  1783.  The  King  of  the  Netherlands, 
to  whom  as  arbitrator  the  contention  was  submitted,  exceeded  his  province 
by  drawing  a  compromise  line  without  reference  to  the  original  merits  of 
the  dispute  ;  and  the  United  States  refused  to  accept  the  award.  In 
1842  the  question  was  settled  by  the  Webster- Ashburton  Treaty,  which 
gave  each  country  about  half  the  disputed  territory. 

322.    Excursus:     Anti-rent   Riots  and  " Dorr's  Rebellion."  — 

Two  radical  movements  in  State  governments  belong  to  this 
period. 

a.  The  land  near  the  Hudson  had  belonged  originally  to 
large  proprietors  known  as  patroons  (§  109),  and  the  modern 
holders  still  paid  an  annual  "  quit  rent "  of  ten  or  twenty  cents 
an  acre  to  the  descendants  of  the  patroons.  In  1839  there 
began  a  remarkable  series  of  anti-rent  riots,  with  much  dis- 
cussion in  public  meetings.  Sheriffs  and  some  rent  payers  were 
killed;  and  popular  sympathy  was  with  the  agitation  so  far 
that  the  landlords  finally  gave  up  their  claims  in  return  for  a 
small  lump  sum  from  the  State  of  ISTew  York. 


522  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

b.  In  Rhode  Island  the  franchise  had  not  been  reformed 
since  colonial  days,  —  when  it  had  sunk  to  the  narrowest,  per- 
haps, in  any  colony.  No  man  could  vote  unless  he  owned  real 
estate  worth  $  lSJf  (or  unless  he  were  the  oldest  son  of  such  a 
man)  ;  and  the  smallest  town  had  as  much  weight  in  the  legis- 
lature as  the  capital  city  —  which  contained  about  a  third  of 
the  whole  population.  The  people  had  long  clamored  for 
reform  :  the  close  oligarchy  paid  no  attention  to  the  cry. 
In  1841,  unable  to  get  action  through  the  oligarchic  leg- 
islature, a  People's  Party  arranged,  without  legislative  ap- 
proval, for  the  choice  of  a  constitutional  convention  by  man- 
hood suffrage.  The  convention  was  duly  and  peacefully  elected, 
by  the  participation  of  the  great  mass  of  the  citizens ;  and  its 
constitution  was  duly  ratified  in  like  manner.  Then  the  people 
chose  Thomas  Wilson  Doit,  their  leader  in  the  revolution,  for 
governor  under  the  new  constitution.  The  old  "  charter  gov- 
ernment "  refused  to  surrender  possession  of  the  government, 
and  was  supported  by  President  Tyler  with  the  promise  of 
Federal  troops.  The  revolutionary  government  then  vanished, 
and  Dorr  was  tried  for  treason,  and  condemned  to  imprison- 
ment for  life  at  hard  labor.1 

Meantime  the  oligarchic  "  charter  government "  saw  that  it 
must  give  way,  but  it  sought,  successfully,  to  save  something 
from  the  wreck.  It  called  a  constitutional  convention,  while 
hundreds  of  democratic  leaders  were  in  jail  under  martial  law 
sentences;  and  though  the  new  constitution  (1842)  provided 
for  manhood  suffrage  for  native  Americans,  the  landed  quali- 
fication for  naturalized  citizens  was  maintained  (until  1882), 
along  with  many  other  archaic  provisions,  most  of  which  still 
(1912)  survive.  The  governor  was  given  no  veto;  the  judici- 
ary was  appointed  by  the  senate  (as  were  sheriffs  and  most 
local  officers) ;  and  the  senate  itself  was  created  on  a  "  rotten 

1  A  year  later,  the  first  legislature  of  the  new  government  (below)  set  him 
free  by  special  act,  —  not  by  the  usual  form  of  pardon ;  but  this  martyr  to  the 
cause  of  constitutional  freedom  died  some  years  later  from  disease  contracted 
in  his  unwholesome  prison  life. 


POLITICAL  MACHINERY  523 

borough"  basis.  It  was  to  have  one  member,  and  one  only, 
from  each  town  (so  that  Providence,  with  its  225,000  people,  has 
no  more  weight  in  that  House  than  a  village  of  500  people).1 

III.     DEMOCRATIC   POLITICAL  MACHINERY:  * 

IMPERFECTIONS 

The  other  important  measures  of  Tyler's  administration  are  intimately 
connected  with  the  slavery  struggle. "  Before  passing  to  that,  we  must  note 
one  other  matter  that  belongs  especially  to  the  Jacksonian  era.  The  new 
democracy  needed  new  political  machinery  to  work  its  will.  This  need 
gave  birth  to  various  devices  in  government,  which  continued  with  little 
change  for  some  eighty  years.  Some  of  them,  ivhich  were  less  democratic 
in  reality  than  in  theory,  have  now  (1912)  begun  to  suffer  radical  modifi- 
cation; but  in  parts  of  the  Union  the  whole  system  is  still  unimpaired. 

323.  Composition  of  National  Conventions.  —  The  members  of 
a  political  party  in  each  State  send  to  a  National  convention 
(§  307)  twice  as  many  delegates  as  the  State  has  electoral  votes 
(four  "  delegates  at  large  n  for  its  two  Senators,  and  two  "  dis- 
trict delegates  "  for  each  Representative.2  The  rule  of  voting 
within  the  Convention  differs  in  different  parties.  The  Demo- 
cratic Party  follows  the  "  unit  rule " ; 3  that  is,  the  chair- 
man of  each  State  delegation  casts  the  whole  vote  of  the  State 
as  the  majority  of  the  delegation  may  decide.  The  present 
Republican  Party  permits  each  delegate  to  cast  his  own  vote. 


1  The  only  form  of  amendment  provided  for  in  the  constitution  demands 
the  approval  of  two  successive  legislatures  hefore  submission  to  the  people. 
The  rotten-borough  legislature  refuses  to  submit  any  proposal  which  would 
reform  itself ;  and  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  have  recently  given  an 
opinion  that  amendment  through  a  constitutional  convention  is  not  constitu- 
tionally possible.  There  is  agitation  now  going  on  (1912),  however,  for  such 
a  convention. 

2  Until  1912  the  delegates  at  large  were  always  chosen  in  a  State  conven- 
tion of  the  party,  while  the  others  were  chosen  in  separate  "  district  conven- 
tions" (one  for  each  congressional  district). 

8  Except  where  a  State  by  its  party  convention,  or  by  its  presidential 
primary  law  (§§324  and  467),  has  expressly  decided  that  its  delegates  are 
to  vote  individually. 


524  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

324.    The  Convention  and  Committee  System  in  Operation. — 

The  National  Convention  of  a  Party  has  three  duties :  it  nom- 
inates candidates  for  President  and  Vice  President;  adopts  a 
statement  of  principles  ("  platform  ")  on  which  the  candidates 
are  supposed  to  stand;1  and  appoints  a  National  Committee,  con- 
sisting of  one  member  from  each  State  and  Territory,  to  act 
for  the  party  during  the  next  four  years. 

Some  months  in  advance  of  the  i^ext  presidential  election, 
this  National  Committee  names  time  and  place  for  the  next 
National  Convention  and  issues  a'  cktl  ^o  the  party.  In  each 
State,  a  State  committee  (appointed  usually  by  a  preceding 
State  convention)  calls  a  State  convention,  specifying  the 
number  of  delegates  to  be  elected  by  the  various  counties.2 
County  and  town  and  precinct  committees,  in  order,  transmit 
the  call  to  their  respective  units,  and  manage  the  machinery 
of  the  campaign. 

For  more  than  three  quarters  of  a  century  the  further  pro- 
cedure remained  as  follows.  Each  voting  precinct  chose  its 
party  delegates  to  a  town  or  county  convention.3  The  county 
convention  chose  delegates  to  the  State  and  Congressional  con- 
ventions, sometimes  instructed  delegates  how  to  vote,  and 
appointed  the  county  committee  for  the  next  period.  The 
State  convention  (1)  chose  State  delegates  to  the  National 
Convention ;  (2)  instructed  them  how  to  vote,  if  it  chose,  and 
usually  adopted  resolutions  on  political  questions ;  (3)  nomi- 


1  Unhappily,  platforms  have  become  devices  to  catch  votes  rather  than 
frank  statements  of  principles,  and  their  most  solemn  pledges  are  often  dis- 
regarded after  the  elections.  The  people,  therefore,  pay  more  attention  to  the 
views  expressed  by  the  nominees  in  their  letters  of  acceptance  and  their 
speeches,  which  sometimes  are  widely  at  variance  with  the  Convention  plat- 
form. 

2  The  ratio  is  fixed  either  by  population  or  by  the  previous  vote  of  the 
party  in  the  various  subdivisions. 

3  Kural  voting  districts  choose  direct  to  the  county  convention.  Cities  are 
divided  necessarily  into  smaller  voting  districts,  called  precincts.  These 
sometimes  choose  direct  to  the  county  convention,  which  elects  the  county 
delegates. 


//// 


POLITICAL  MACHINERY  525 

nated  candidates  for  presidential  electors ;   and  (4)  appointed 
the  next  State  committee. 

This  network  of  committees  is  the  vital  machinery  of  the  party.  The 
National  Committee  keeps  in  close  touch  with  each  State  committee  ; 
the  State  committee  with  County  committees  and  so  on  down  through 
the  hierarchy  to  the  precinct  committees  in  the  smallest  voting  unit. 
The  National  Committee  collects  funds,  secures  and  distributes  cam- 
paign literature,  and  decides  to  which  States  to  send  Speakers  and 
money  (after  considering  requests  from  State  committees) ; 1  and  each 
State  committee,  in  like  fashion,  directs  the  campaign  within  its  borders. 
The  same  State  convention  may  also  have  the  nomination  of  State 
officers.  Such  was  always  the  case  until  the  introduction  of  "direct 
primaries"  in  many  States,  about  1900,  gave  this  function  directly  to 
the  people.  Soon  afterward,  one  or  two  States  provided  also  that  the 
members  of  a  political  party  might  directly  choose  their  delegates  to 
their  National  Convention  —  without  the  intervention  of  intermediate 
bodies,  and  the  Progressive  agitation  of  1912  (§458  ff.)  resulted  in  much 
more  legislation  for  such  direct  expression  of  the  popular  will.  Some 
of  these  State  laws  even  made  the  State  and  local  committees  elective  at 
the  party  primaries. 

Thus,  in  political  theory,  the  people,  divided  into  two  great  parties, 
choose  their  candidates  for  President.  Then,  in  State  conventions,  they 
nominate  "electors."  Whichever  set  of  electors  is  chosen  at  the  polls 
casts  the  vote  of  the  people  for  the  Convention  candidate,  to  be  counted 
at  Washington.     That  is,  the  electors  have  become  "  letter  carriers." 

Still  the  election  does  not  amount  to  direct  election  by  the  Nation  as 
one  unit.  (1)  A  small  State  has  relatively  more  than  its  share  of  votes. 
That  is,  Nevada,  with  a  population  not  enough  for  a  single  Congressman, 


1  In  the  campaign,  the  large  and  "  close  "  States  receive  especial  attention. 
In  them  are  concentrated  speakers,  canvassers,  and  all  influences  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  National  Committee.  Of  recent  years,  a  preelection  canvass  of 
the  voters  in  every  precinct  is  customary  (at  expense  far  exceeding  that  of 
the  actual  election),  so  that  every  possible  effort  may  be  put  in  at  the  needful 
point.  Under  such  conditions,  the  temptations  to  trickery  and  to  actual  cor- 
ruption and  bribery  are  tremendous, — especially  as  the  men  engaged  most 
actively  in  the  campaign  are  often  professional  politicians,  whose  livelihood 
depends  upon  bringing  success  to  their  superiors;  and  these,  even  when 
"  honorable  men,"  often  prefer  to  know  only  the  result,  not  the  means. 


r 


526  JACKSONIAN   DEMOCRACY 

casts  three  votes,  while  another  State  with  five  times  that  population  casts 
only  four.  (2)  A  bare  majority  in  one  State,  too,  is  just  as  effective  as  a 
majority  of  hundreds  of  thousands  in  another  State  of  the  same  size. 
Hence,  many  Presidents  are  elected  by  a  minority  of  the  popular  vote. 
This  has  been  true  in  about  one  election  out  of  three  in  our  history. 

All  this  convention  and  preelection  campaigning  is  unknown  to  the 
Constitution  ;  and  until  recently,  it  has  been  none  of  it  regulated  even  by 
State  law.1    Kecent  developments  are  treated  more  fully  in  §§  459-468. 

325.  "Spoils"  and  "Bosses."  —  This  complex  machinery- 
called  for  an  immense  body  of  workers,  — "  more  people," 
thinks -a  competent  authority,  "than  all  the  other  political 
machinery  in  the  world."  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  its 
development  should  have  gone  along  with  the  appearance  of 
the  spoils  system  (§  299),  to  pay  the  necessary  recruits,  and 
with  that  of  "  bosses "  to  direct  these  forces.  In  theory,  the 
political  machinery  was  to  represent  the  people's  will.  In 
practice,  among  a  busy,  optimistic  people,  it  was  admirably 
fitted  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  "professionals."  For  half  a 
century,  wrhile  the  system  was  at  its  worst,  the  average  citizen 
(unless  with  an  "ax  to  grind")  largely  withdrew  from  all 
political  duties,  except,  perhaps,  that  of  voting  for  the  nominees 
put  before  him.  Office  holders  of  various  grades  managed  the 
committees  of  the  party  in  power ;  and  expectants  for  office 
managed  those  of  the  other  party.  Such  conditions  gave  a  low 
tone  to  politics.  A  campaign,  to  the  most  active  participants, 
was  dangerously  like  a  struggle  for  mere  personal  preferment. 

"  Ward  heelers  "  and  the  lowest  grade  of  active  workers,  taking  orders 
from  a  city  boss,  managed  ward  and  precinct  primaries.  Under  the  un- 
reformed  system  of  "mass-meeting"  primaries,  the, professionals  were 
often  the  only  voters  to  appear  ;  and  if  other  citizens  came,  they  found 
the  chairman,  judges,  and  printed  tickets  all  arranged  for  them  by  the 
"machine."  The  managers  were  usually  unscrupulous  players  of  the 
game,  and,  at  a  pinch,  did  not  hesitate  to  "pack  "  a  meeting  in  order  to 
secure  the  election  of  their  delegates.     Arrived  at  State  or  county  con- 

1  Special  reports :  (1)  accounts  of  the  last  National  Conventions  of  each 
party  ;  (2)  the  last  presidential  campaign  in  your  State ;  (3)  abstract  of  your 
State  law  or  practice  as  to  the  party  primaries. 


i ^^     POLITICAL  MACHINERY  527 


vention,  such  delegates,  with  disciplined  obedience,  put  through  the 
"slate"  drawn  up  in  advance  by  the  bigger  bosses, — who  commonly- 
had  arranged  all  details  with  a  nicety  and  precision  found  until  recently 
in  few  lines  of  business. 

The  big  boss  was  not  always  an  officeholder.  His  profit  often  came  in 
indirect  ways  and  sometimes  in  corrupt  ways.  Corporations  wishing 
favors  or  needing  protection  against  unfair  treatment  were  willing  to  pay 
liberally  the  man  who  could  secure  their  will  for  them.  Often  the  bosses 
of  opposing  parties  in  a  State  have  had  a  perfect  understanding  with  each 
other,  working  together  behind  the  scenes  and  dividing  the  plunder. 

326.  Congressmen  and  "Patronage." — It  soon  became  the  custom 
for  the  President  to  nominate  postmasters,  and  other  Federal  officeholders 
for  a  given  Congressional  district,  only  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
congressman,  if  he  were  of  the  President's  party,  or  of  the  "  boss  "  who 
expected  to  become  or  to  make  a  congressman.  The  congressman  used 
this  control  over  federal  patronage  to  build  up  a  personal  machine,  so  as 
to  insure  support  for  his  reelection.  But  the  practice  gives  a  powerful 
weapon  to  a  strong  President,  who  is  often  able  to  coerce  reluctant  con- 
gressmen into  being  "  good  "  by  threatening  not  to  approve  their  recom- 
mendations. 

• 

327.  The  Gerrymander.: — Famous  among  the  tricks  of  the 
game,  as  professional  politicians  came  to  play  it,  is  the  gerry- 
mander. Since  the  early  years  of  the  Republic,  it  has  been 
the  custom  to  choose  congressmen  by  districts.  A  State, 
therefore,  is  partitioned  by  its  legislature  into  as  many  con- 
gressional districts  as  it  has  congressmen.  Too  frequently, 
the  party  in  power  shapes  these  districts  with  shameful  unfair- 
ness. If  it  cannot  control  them  all  for  itself,  it  can  usually 
pack  hostile  majorities  into  two  or  three  of  many  districts, 
leaving  the  rest  "  safe  "  ;  or  it  can  add  a  strongly  favorable 
county  to  a  doubtful  district.  State  constitutions  usually 
require  that  a  county  shall  not  be  divided  (unless  of  itself  it 
makes  more  than  one  district)  and  that  each  district  must  be 
made  up  of  "contiguous  territory."  But  such  restrictions, 
amount  to  little  in  the  absence  of  popular  opinion  to  resent 
and  punish  trickery.  Some  atrocities  have  become  notorious. 
Mississippi  for  decades  had  a  "  shoe-string  "  district  two  hun- 


528 


JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 


dred  and  fifty  miles  long  and  nowhere  thirty  miles  wide.  And 
in  Missouri,  to  counteract  the  negro  vote,  a  district  was  once 
devised  with  windings  that  made  it  longer  than  any  straight 
line  within  the  State.  In  general,  however,  a  little  manipula- 
tion secures  the  desired  purpose,  without  recourse  to  such  grossly 
apparent  sins  against  good  taste. 


SOUTH 
The  "  Gerrymander." 
(Part  of  an  Anti-Gerry  handbill  in  1S13.) 


The  first  famous  use  of  this  device  was  in  Massachusetts  in  1812.  The 
Republicans  were  in  power,  but  could  not  hope  to  retain  it  against  Feder- 
alist feeling  regarding  the  War.    To  retain  a  part,  the  legislature,  with  the 


POLITICAL  MACHINERY  529 

approval  of  Governor  Gerry,  constructed  a  congressional  district  of  atro- 
cious unfairness.  A  Federalist  editor  drew  a  map  of  this  and  hung  it  over 
his  desk,  to  feed  his  wrath.  Gilbert  Stuart,  the  famous  painter,  noticed 
the  monstrosity  one  day,  and  with  ready  pencil  added  wings  and  claws, 
exclaiming,  "There's  your  salamander!"  "Better  say  Gerryman- 
der," growled  the  editor,  a  bitter  hater  of  Governor  Gerry  ;  and  the 
uncouth  name  passed  into  current  use. 

Thus  the  invention  of  the  disreputable  device  belonged  to  an  era  when 
statesmen,  disbelieving  in  popular  government,  thought  it  no  wrong  to 
evade  the  people's  will.  It  was  perpetuated  and  magnified  after  1830  by 
politicians  whose  lips  worshiped  the  voice  of  the  people,  but  who  in  practice 
played  politics  in  much  the  same  spirit  they  played  poker  at  a  gaming 
table. 

All  the  faults  of  the  congressional  gerrymander  are  duplicated,  of 
course,  in  dividing  the  State  into  legislative  districts,  and,  to  a  great 
measure,  in  establishing  in  cities  the  units  for  choice  of  aldermen.1 

328.  "  Mr.  Speaker  "  and  Congressional  Committees.  —  The  con- 
stitutional changes  noted  in  §§  299-303  and  323-327  were  the 
product  of  growing  democracy  and  of  the  development  of  'party 
government.  The  latter  alone  was  the  chief  cause  of  one  other 
great  change  which  belongs  mainly  to  this  era.  This  was  the 
growth  of  the  power  of  the  Speaker  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives,—  "our  king  in  dress  coat,"  or  athe  second  man  in  the 
government." 

In  the  English  parliament,  the  whole  course  of  legislation  is 
controlled  by  the  ministry,  —  really  a  committee  of  the  majority 
party.      This  ministry  apportions  time  for  debate  and  deter- 

!Look  up  the  congressional  districts  in  your  State  on  a  map.  Has  there 
been  any  notable  gerrymander,  for  State  legislature  or  for  Congress,  in  your 
State  history  ?    What  are  the  rules  governing  apportionment  in  your  State? 

There  is  nothing,  outside  the  State  constitution,  at  least,  to  prevent  a  legis- 
lature providing  at  any  time  for  electing  all  the  congressmen  of  a  State  on 
one  ticket;  but  (except  in  apparent  necessity,  from  failure  to  redistrict  a 
State  in  time)  no  party  is  likely  to  attempt  this,  because  of  the  offense  to 
local  sentiment.  Except  in  a  few  small  States,  American  opinion  has  come  to 
demand  that  congressmen  shall  be  chosen  by  districts ;  and  that  each  one  shall 
be  a  resident  of  his  district,  and  therefore  known  to  the  voters  and  familiar 
with  their  needs.  Some  State  constitutions,  indeed,  contain  this  residence 
requirement. 


530  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

mines  the  order  in  which  bills  shall  be  considered;  and  conse- 
quently few  bills  unacceptable  to  it  are  even  introduced.  Our 
legislative  bodies  lack  such  direction.  Bills  are  introduced 
in  vast  numbers,  beyond  all  possible  ability  to  deal  with 
them  under  any  system  ;  and  the  nearest  approach  to  direction 
over  'this  confused  mass  of  legislation  lies  in  the  committee 
system  peculiar  to  American  legislative  bodies.  This  machin- 
ery of  standing  committees,  appointed  by  the  Speaker,  was 
well  established  when  Henry  Clay  became  Speaker  for  the 
second  time  in  1829 ;  but  Clay  made  a  new  era  by  the  vigor 
with  which  he  used  his  power  of  appointment  in  order  to  con- 
struct committees  so  as  to  control  the  whole  course  of  legisla- 
tion according  to  his  own  wish.  Succeeding  Speakers  followed 
this  practice,  —  with  some  notable  revolts  by  Congress,  —  until 
the  Democratic  Congress  of  1911  placed  this  directing  power  in 
the  hands  of  a  steering  committee  elected  by  a  party  caucus. 

The  English  "Speaker"  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  non-partisan. 
His  recognized  duty  is  to  preside  with  absolute  impartiality  between  the 
two  parties  ;  and  this  duty  is  so  well  met  that,  ordinarily,  a  change 
of  parties  does  not  involve  a  change  of  Speaker.  In  America,  the 
Speaker  is  always  a  party  leader,  —  leader  of  the  majority.  He  is 
elected  really  not  by  the  whole  legislature,  but  by  a  caucus  of  his  party. 
Whoever  receives  the  nomination  there  is  entitled  by  custom  to  the  whole 
vote  of  the  party  in  the  election.  When  chosen,  his  duty  is  to  manage 
the  interests  of  his  party  and  secure  their  dominance.1 

Every  bill  is  referred  to  an  appropriate  committee  (usually  by  the 
Speaker  alone,  or,  in  important  cases,  by  vote  of  the  House) .  Each  com- 
mittee, by  custom,  is  made  up  of  members  from  both  parties  ;  but  the 
majority  party  has  a  working  majority  of  every  committee,  and  this 
majority,  in  secret  caiicus,  decides  all  important  action  without  admitting 
the  members  of  the  opposite  party  even  to  consultation.     The  full  com- 

1  In  non-legislative  bodies,  the  presiding  officer  still  keeps  the  office  of 
"moderator"  between  factions,  and  is  expected  to  show  absolute  impartial- 
ity, after  the  old  English  traditions.  The  other  practice  in  American  legisla- 
tive bodies  seems  to  have  originated  in  the  period  of  the  Revolution.  The 
Speakers  of  the  colonial  legislatures  were  always  leaders  of  the  patriot  op- 
position to  English  governors  ;  and  this  partisan  character  became  fixed  in 
the  office,  when  party  government  developed  soon  after. 


POLITICAL  MACHINERY  531 

mittee  then  can  only  ratify  the  action  determined  upon  in  such  caucus. 
Bills  undesirable  to  the  majority,  or  to  the  Speaker,  are  smothered  in 
committee  and  never  reported,  even  adversely,  except  in  cases  where  such 
action  would  arouse  wide  popular  resentment. 

When  a  bill  has  been  reported,  debate  upon  it  is  regulated  by  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  and  by  the  Speaker.  If  the  bill  concerns  a 
"  party  measure,"  custom  requires  a  certain  degree  of  fairness  in  debate  ; 
and  some  division  of  time  is  arranged  between  the  Speaker  (for  the  party 
in  power)  and  the  "leader  of  the  opposition"  (a  member  chosen  by  a 
caucus  of  the  minority).  Each  of  these  leaders  then  apportions  the  time 
allotted  his  side  among  such  speakers  as  he  thinks  fit,  and  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  recognizes  the  members  in  the  order  agreed  upon. 

Unlike  an  English  presiding  officer,  the  Speaker  is  not  expected  to 
recognize  members  in  the  order  of  their  taking  the  floor,  but,  in  the 
absence  of  such  an  agreement  as  just  described,  only  at  his  discretion. 
This  discretion  is  exercised  sometimes  in  tyrannical  manner,  to  pay  off 
personal  grudges.  Only  a  determined  and  organized  revolt  by  a  strong 
majority,  skilled  in  taking  advantage  of  parliamentary  rules,  can  overrule 
a  strong  Speaker.  Indeed,  success  was  almost  without  precedent,  spite  of 
many  vigorous  protests  against  "  Tsarism,"  until  the  moderate  success  of 
the  combined  Republican  and  Democratic  "Insurgents"  against  Speaker 
Cannon  in  1910.  At  present  (1912),  the  rules  are  in  a  state  of  flux,  and 
some  new  procedure  is  likely  to  evolve.1 

In  the  absence  of  a  responsible  ministry  to  control  debate, 
the  despotic  power  intrusted  to  the  Speaker  and  his  commit- 
tees was  a  convenient,  if  not  a  necessary,  means  of  escaping 
legislative  anarchy.  Unless  checked  by  some  snch  powrer, 
minority   members,   by   shrewd    "filibustering/'    could   waste 


1  In  1910  Speaker  Cannon's  despotic  rule,  exercised  largely  in  favor  of 
certain  moneyed  interests,  aroused  intense  indignation  among  a  strong  sec- 
tion of  his  own  party.  The  Democrats  secured  a  majority  in  the  next  Con- 
gress, largely  through  a  popular  revolt  against  "  Cannonism."  This  Congress 
met  in  special  session  in  April,  1911.  The  Democratic  majority  in  caucus 
appointed  a  committee  to  nominate  the  Democratic  members  of  each  stand- 
ing committee,  and  invited  the  Republican  minority  to  adopt  a  like  method 
(notifying  them  how  many  members  would  be  allowed  them) .  Then,  in  full 
House,  when  time  came  to  organize,  the  Democratic  majority,  appointed  the 
committees  so  nominated.  Speaker  Champ  Clark  had  advocated  this  limita- 
tion of  the  power  of  his  office  in  the  hope  of  making  congressional  committees 
more  truly  representative. 


532  JACKSONIAN  DEMOCRACY 

time  and  prevent  any  action  whatever  upon  many  important 
measures.  The  party  in  power  feels  that  it  is  responsible  for 
action  or  non-action,  and  is  very  certain  to  always  adopt  soine 
means  to  regulate  legislative  procedure.  The  United  States 
Senate,  it  is  true,  has  tried  to  cling  to  the  ancient  traditions  of 
legislative  freedom  of  debate ;  but  even  in  that  body  change 
has  already  appeared. 

State  legislatures  {both  Houses)  and  city  councils  have  copied  most  of 
these  features  of  committee  government  and  of  the  power  of  the  presiding 
officer  from  the  National  House  of  Bepresentatives. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  On  §325,  the  advanced  student  may  consult 
McConachie's  Congressional  Committees  (1-149,  260-300)  ;  Follett's 
The  Speaker  (122-178,  217-296)  ;  Wilson's  Congressional  Government 
(80-99)  ;  Ford's  American  Politics.  §§  320-324  are  covered  in  the  last- 
named  work  and  in  other  references  already  given  for  this  period. 
Detailed  treatment  may  be  found  best  in  Bryce's  American  Common- 
icealth,  and,  more  briefly,  in  any  good  treatise  on  Civil  Government. 
Fish's  Civil  Service  and  Patronage  (Harvard  Studies,  XI)  contains  an 
admirable  survey  in  the  first  thirty  pages. 

Exercise.  —  Review  (1)  the  tariff  system;  (2)  land  policy;  (3)  the 
franchise  ;  (4)  the  Labor  movement ;  and  make  a  "  brief  "  for  each  topicT 
Make  a  brief  list  of  important  events  in  each  Presidential  administration 
from  1789  to  1841  to  be  preserved  for  reference. 


J 


'<#*  h  "TrL^H 


^>>  r^ 


CHAPTER   XIV  i/ 


THE   SLAVERY   STRUGGLE 

In  I844  the  Slave  Power  began  to  demand  more  territory ;  and,  for 
the  next  twenty  years,  slavery  (with  its  movement  for  disunion)  was  the 
dominant  question  in  American  politics  (§§339  ff.).  Before  entering 
upon  this  story,  it  will  be  well  for  the  student  to  review  the  earlier  phases 
of  the  question  (§§  329-338) . 

I.    TO    1829:   SLAVERY   DEFENSIVE 

329.  Before  the  Revolution  there  is  little  trace  of  antislavery  feeling. 
Slaves  were  held  in  every  colony,  though  economic  causes  made  them 
least  numerous  in  the  North  (§  124).  The  Revolution,  with  its  new 
emphasis  upon  human  rights,  created  the  first  antislavery  movement.1 
This  movement  lasted  until  about  1820,  though  it  spent  its  greatest 
force  before  1800.  It  was  a  moral  and  religious  movement,  rather  than 
political,  belonging  to  the  South  quite  as  much  as  to  the  North  ;  and  it 
was  considerate  of  the  slaveholder's  difficulties.  On  their  part,  the 
slaveholders  (outside  Georgia  and  South  Carolina)  2  usually  apologized 
for  slavery  as  an  evil  they  would  be  glad  to  get  rid  of  safely.  Slavery 
seemed  a  dying  institution. 

330.  State  Emancipation.  —  Naturally  it  died  quickest  where 
slaves  were  fewest.  Vermont's  constitution  of  1777  abolished 
slavery,  as  did  that  of  Massachusetts,  indirectly,  in  1780  (§  149, 
close),  and  that  of  New  Hampshire  in  1783.  By  law,  Penn- 
sylvania decreed  freedom  for  all  children  born  to  slave  parents 

1  So,  too,  Revolutionary  France  abolished  slavery  in  her  West  Indies  in 
1794,  as  did  the  Spanish- American  States,  without  exception,  as  they  won  their 
independence  after  1815  (§  277). 

2  And  a  congressman  from  Georgia  in  the  First  Congress  stated,  without 
contradiction,  that  there  was  no  one  in  his  State  who  did  not  think  slavery  a 
curse. 

533 


534  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

in  her  territory  after  1780;  and  this  sort  of  gradual  emancipa- 
tion was  adopted  in  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  in  1784, 
in  New  York  in  1799,  and  in  New  Jersey  in  1804 ;  while  in 
most  Southern  States  prominent  statesmen  and  influential 
societies  were^  urging  similar  action. 

-'After  1*804,  no  slave  could  be  born  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  Line ; 
but  nearly  all  the  ' '  free  States ' '  continued  to  contain  slaves  born  before 
' '  gradual  emancipation ' '  began.  The  census  of  1830  showed  some  twenty- 
seven  hundred  slaves  in  the  North- Atlantic  section  ;  and  as  late  as  1850 
New  Jersey  counted  236.  So,  too,  all  the  States  of  the  Old  Northwest, 
except  Michigan,  contained  some  slaves  in  1840,  —  survivors  of  those 
owned  by  the  original  French  settlers.  The  antislavery  provision  in  the 
Northwest  Ordinance  was  interpreted,  in  practice,  not  to  abolish  existing 
slavery,  but  merely  to  forbid  its  further  introduction. 

In  the  Southern  States,  where  slaves  were  numerous,  no  one  believed 
in  general  emancipation  without  provision  for  removing  the  Negroes.1 
This  sentiment  created  the  American  Colonization  Society,  which,  with 
much  tribulation,  established  the  Negro  Kepublic  of  Liberia  on  the  Afri- 
can coast  as  a  home  for  ex-slaves.  The  Society  proved  unable,  however, 
to  colonize  free  Negroes  in  large  numbers. 

The  antislavery  workers  were  the  first  agitators  to  make  general  use 
of  organized  societies  to  advance  reform.  The  first  antislavery  society 
appeared  among  the  Pennsylvania  Quakers  in  1775.  Such  organizations 
were  especially  strong  in  Southern  States,  and  in  1820  were  found  in 
every  Slave  State  except  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Louisiana. 

If  slavery  was  to  die  in  the  remaining  States,  two  things  were  essential. 
New  slaves  must  not  be  imported  from  abroad  (§  331),  and  slavery  must  not 
spread  into  new  territory  (§  332  ff.). 

1  It  had  been  part  of  Jefferson's  plan,  in  his  bill  for  gradual  emancipation 
in  Virginia  (§  254) ,  that  children  of  slaves  should  thereafter  be  educated  at 
State  expense  "  to  tillage,  arts,  or  sciences,  according  to  their  geniuses,"  until 
of  age,  "  when  they  should  be  colonized  to  such  place  as  the  circumstances  .  .  . 
should  render  most  proper,  sending  them  out  with  arms,  implements  of  house- 
hold and  of  handicraft  arts,  seeds,  pairs  of  useful  animals,  etc.,  to  declare 
them  a  free  and  independent  people,  and  extend  to  them  our  alliance  and 
protection  until  they  have  acquired  strength."  So,  fifty  years  later  (1829), 
Henry  Clay,  supporting  the  Kentucky  Colonization  Society,  declared  his  hate 
for  slavery  as  the  "  deepest  stain  upon  the  character  of  our  country,"  but  an- 
nounced his  belief  that  to  free  the  Negroes,  without  at  the  same  time  coloniz- 
ing them  in  Africa,  would  bring  upon  society  "an  aggregate  oT  eyife  •  •  • 
greater  than  all  the  evils  of  slavery." 


SLAVERY  DEFENSIVE   TO   1820  535 

331.  The  foreign  slave  trade  was  condemned  by  resolutions 
of  the  Continental  Congress  in  1774  and  1776,  and,  during  the 
Revolutionary  period,  was  prohibited  by  every  State  except 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  (§§  205,  206).  In  deference  to 
the  demand  of  these  two  States,  the  Constitution  permitted  the 
importation  of  slaves  for  a  limited  time ;  but  as  soon  as  the 
twenty-year  period  had  expired,  the  trade  was  prohibited  by 
Congress  (§  258). 

After  1807,  England  kept  a  naval  patrol  on  the  African  coast  to  inter- 
cept "slavers,"  who  were  regarded  as  pirates  by  most  European  nations. 
Unhappily,  England's  invitations  to  the  United  States  to  join  in  this  good 
work,  in  1817  and  1824,  were  rejected  by  our  Government.  The  War  of 
1812  had  made  us  exceedingly  sensitive  regarding  the  "right  of  search," 
and  we  now  refused  to  permit  an  English  ship  to  search  a  vessel  flying  the 
American  flag,  even  to  ascertain  whether  that  flag  covered  an  American 
ship.  Consequently  our  flag  was  used  by  slavers  of  all  nations  (especially, 
it  must  be  confessed,  of  our  own),  engaged  in  the  horrible  and  lucra- 
tive business  of  stealing  Negroes  in  Africa  to  sell  in  Brazil  or  Cuba,  or, 
after  running  our  rather  ineffective  patrol,  in  the  cities  of  South  Carolina, 
where  little  disguise  was  made  of  defiance  of  the  Eederal  law.1 

332.  Limitation  of  Territory.  —  The  three  great  attempts  in  this 
period  to  prevent  slavery  from  spreading  into  the  national  domain  have 
been  treated  (§§  181,  183.  283).  It  was  extended,  however,  into  the  old 
Southwest  Territory  and  into  the  southern  parts  of  the  Louisiana  Pur- 
chase. The  action  of  Congress  was  vacillating.  It  established  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,2  and  it  passed  the  infamous  Fugitive  Slave 

1  St\rn.  statujfes,  on  paper,  were  passed  repeatedly  by  Congress,  but  little 
effort  was  made  to  enforce  them ;  and  several  thousand  Negroes  fresh  from 
Africa  were  sold  in  Charleston  every  year.  Special  report  :  the  horrors  of 
this  foreign  trade. 

France  early  conceded  to  England  this  "right  of  search,"  to  check  the 
piratical  slave  trade;  and  other  European  states  followed  this  example. 
In  1842,  in  the  Ashburton  Treaty  (§  317),  the  United  States  joined  England  in 
an  agreement  to  keep  &  joint  squadron  off  the  coast  of  Africa  to  suppress  the 
trade ;  but  we  never  took  our  proper  share  in  this  work  until  after  the  open- 
ing of  the  Civil  War. 

2  Congress  reenacted  the  slave  code  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  for  that 
District.  Accordingly,  under  the  shadow  of  the  Capitol,  a  strange  Negro 
might  be  arrested  and  advertised  on  the  suspicion  of  being  an  escaped  slave  ; 


536  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

Act  (§  223)  ;  but,  besides  the  restriction  of  the  foreign  slave  trade 
(§  258),  it  reenacted  the  anti-slavery  provision  of  the  Northwest  Ordi- 
nance and  resisted  many  attempts  by  the  people  of  Indiana  and  Illinois 
to  secure  its  repeal. 

Many  immigrants  from  south  of  the  Ohio  wished  to  bring  in  their 
slaves  with  them.  To  attract  such  settlers,  and  to  supply  the  labor  so 
much  needed  in  all  new  countries,  the  people  of  early  Indiana  and  Illinois 
made  repeated  petitions  to  Congress  to  repeal  that  famous  restriction  in 
the  Northwest  Ordinance.  When  such  efforts  failed,  the  Territorial  legis- 
latures tried  evasion  of  the  Federal  law.  Thousands  of  slaves  were 
brought  into  the  two  Territories  under  forms  of  indenture  or  of  "  labor 
contracts  ";  and  laws  were  enacted  expressly  to  sanction  this  disguised 
slavery. 

These  "  Black  laws  "  are  a  blot  on  the  fame  of  the  early  Northwestern 
States,  so  nobly  dedicated  to  freedom  by  the  great  Ordinance.  Says 
McMaster  (History,  V,  188):  "To  all  intents  and  purposes,  slavery 
was  as  much  a  domestic  institution  of  Illinois  in  1820  as  of  Kentucky"  ; 
and  Professor  Hart  (Salmon  P.  Chase,  31)  says  of  Ohio  in  the  early 
thirties:  "Ordinary  principles  of  right  to  labor,  of  movement  from 
place  to  place,  of  legal  privileges,  did  not  apply  to  men  of  dark  skins." 

333.  Slavery  Aggressive.  —  The  years  from  the  Missouri 
Compromise  to  the  election  of  Jackson  (1820-1829)  form  a 
transition  period.  Slavery  was  still  defended  as  an  evil,  but  as 
an  evil  inevitable  and  permanent.  Its  defenders  still  stood  on 
the  defensive,  but  they  were  less  apologetic  in  tone. 

TJiis  new  attitude  was  due  to  a  potent  moneyed  interest.  Slavery 
ivas  growing  more  profitable.  The  increased  efficiency  of  slave- 
labor  because  of  the  cotton  gin  raised  the  value  of  a  field  hand 
from  $200  in  1790  to  $1000  in  1850.  Accordingly,  the 
Border  States,  where  antislavery  sentiment  had  been  especially 
strong,  looked  upon  the  institution  in  a  new  light  when  they 
began  to  sell  their  surplus  slaves  at  high  prices  to  more  south- 
ern communities.  Moreover,  the  admission  of  Louisiana  as  a 
slave  State,  together  with  the  extension  of  slavery  into  the 

and  if  no  owner  appeared  to  prove  that  suspicion,  he  might  still  be  sold  into 
slavery  to  satisfy  the  jailor's  fees.  This,  however,  had  been  a  recent  practice 
in  Northern  States  for  white  vagrants  (§  124). 


SLAVERY  AGGRESSIVE  AFTER   1830  537 

rest  of  the  Southwest,  made  its  ultimate  overthrow  seem  less 
possible. 

The  struggle  over  the  Missouri  Compromise  (§  283)  was  the 
first  great  indication  of  this  changed  attitude.  The  measure 
was  distinctly  Southern.  It  won  Missouri  and  Arkansas  to 
slavery ;  and  this  extension  was  favored  by  Clay,  Madison,  and 
the  aged  Jefferson !  Not  a  Southern  congressman  voted  for  a 
"  free  "  Missouri ;  while  only  fifteen  Northerners  voted  against 
the  restriction  on  slavery  —  and  only  three  of  these  secured 
reelection. 

Ten  or  twelve  years  later,  the  Slave  Power  had  become  aggres- 
sive. It  advocated  slavej^Jhereafter  as  a  good,  economic  and 
moral,  for  both  slaveand  master,  and  as  the  only  corner  stone 
for  the  highest  type  of  civilization.  In  consequence,  the  Negro 
was  represented  as  animal  rather  than  human,  and  wholly  unfit 
for  freedom.  All  these  new  views  found  an  able  champion  in 
Calhoun,  who  devoted  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  to  their 
advocacy. 

II.     1829-1860:  SLAVERY   AGGRESSIVE 

334.   African  Slavery  and  the  Slave  Power  in  their  Last  Period.  — 

The  character  of  slavery  in  colonial  times  has  been  briefly  suggested 
(§  124)  ;  and  the  classes  of  Southern  people  in  1830  have  been  noted 
(§  284  b).  By  that  date  slavery  had  taken  on  somewhat  darker  phases 
than  were  characteristic  of  the  earlier  period.  Slave  life  in  Virginia  and 
the  Border  States  continued,  on  the  whole,  humane  and  semi-patriarchal, 
except  for  the  distressing  sale  of  parts  of  a  slave  family.  But  the  planta- 
tion type  of  harsh,  degrading  slavery,  formerly  characteristic  mainly  of 
Carolina  or  Georgia  rice  swamps,  had  now  been  extended  over  vast 
cotton  areas  in  all  the  "Lower  South."  Even  in  that  district,  of  course, 
the  house  servants  were  petted  and  gently  cared  for,  as  a  rule  ;  and  often 
between  masters  and  slaves  there  was  warm  affection.  On  most  planta- 
tions, too,  where  the  owner's  family  resided,  master  and  mistress  felt  a 
high  sense  of  duty  to  their  helpless  "charges,"  even  of  the  field-hand 
class.1     But  the  majority  of  plantations  were  managed  by  overseers, 

1  The  aged  James  B.  Angell,  in  an  address  in  1910,  recounting  reminiscences 
of  a  horseback  jonrney  through  the  South  in  1850,  gave  a  forceful  illustra- 
tion.   On  a  certain  Carolina  plantation,  in  the  evening,  the  hostess  had 


538  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

drawn  from  the  lower  strata  of  the  Whites,  brutalized  with  irresponsible 
and  despotic  power,  and  forced  to  be  hard  taskmasters  by  the  system 
under  which  they  lived.1  The  overseer's  reputation  as  a  valuable  man 
depended  solely  upon  the  number  of  bales  of  cotton  he  could  turn  out ; 
and  he  was  tempted  increasingly  to  drive  harder  and  more  mercilessly. 
It  was  the  general  belief  that  the  Negro  would  work  only  under  the  lash 
or  the  fear  of  it ;  and  it  was  a  common  thing  for  the  overseer  to  furnish 
long  whips  to  the  "  drivers  "  (taken  usually  from  the  more  brutal  slaves), 
who  stalked  up  and  down  between  the  rows  of  workers.  In  the  ex- 
treme South,  it  was  not  unheard  of  for  a  master  himself  to  avow  the 
economic  policy  of  working  to  death  his  gang  of  slaves  every  seven 
years  or  so,  in  favor  of  a  new  supply.2  In  general,  however,  critical 
observers  had  to  confess  that  the  same  motives  which  secure  reasonable 
treatment  for  a  teamster's  horses  kept  the  slave  in  good  condition. 

The  Negroes  lived  in  foul  cabins  —  which,  however,  are  commonly 
little  better  after  forty  years  of  freedom  —  and  their  food  and  clothing 
were  of  the  cheapest,  though  the  food  was  usually  sufficient  in  quantity. 
Among  the  worst  direct  evils  of  the  system  were  the  elimination  of 
incentive  to  improvement  and  the  ruin  to  family  life.3 


warmly  denounced  Northern  antislavery  agitation.  In  the  early  morning 
from  his  window,  he  chanced  to  see  her  returning  from  the  group  of  Negro 
cabins,  where,  he  learned,  she  had  spent  the  later  hours  of  the  night  in  nurs- 
ing a  dying  Negro  baby. 

1  State  laws  forbade  murdering  a  slave  at  the  whipping-post  ;  but  a  loop- 
hole was  usually  provided  by  some  clause  pronouncing  the  owner  or  overseer 
guiltless  if  a  slave  "died  "  as  the  result  of  only  "moderate  correction."  In 
any  case,  a  Negro's  testimony  could  not  be  taken  against  a  White  man,  and 
often  the  merciless  overseer  was  the  only  White  present  at  his  crimes. 

2  After  1830,  the  piratical  and  unspeakably  horrible  foreign  slave  trade 
grew  rapidly,  until,  in  the  decade  1850-1860,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  savages 
from  African  jungles  were  brought  to  American  slave  markets—  nor  did  any 
slaver  receive  the  penalty  of  the  law  until  the  Civil  War  had  begun.  Worse, 
perhaps,  because  the  victims  had  taken  on  more  civilization,  and  therefore 
more  capacity  for  suffering,  was  the  "  domestic  "  trade  "  down  the  river."     A 

•  curious  self-condemnation  of  slavery  lies  in  the  fact  that  even  in  these  times 
the  slave  dealer,  so  essential  to  the  system,  was  a  social  outcast  at  the  South. 
8  The  better  sort  of  Whites  tried  to  keep  slave  families  together,  but 
legislation  did  not  compel  this  decency  ;  and,  in  practice  the  division  of 
families  was  exceedingly  common.  Indeed,  the  Southern  branches  of  the 
Protestant  Churches,  by  formal  resolution,  recognized  the  separate  sale  of  a 
husband  or  wife  as  a  true  "divorce,"  and  permitted  "remarriage  "  on  such 
ground.  In  consequence  of  this  condition,  sex  relations  remained  horribly 
degraded  and  confused. 


THE  ABOLITIONISTS  539 

On  the  other  hand,  the  South  pointed  to  the  pitiful  condition  of  the 
mass  of  labor  in  "  free  "  countries,  and  argued  eagerly  that  the  slave  was 
no  worse  off.  Said  DeBow's  Beview,  the  leading  Southern  periodical,  — 
"  Where  a  man  is  compelled  to  labor  at  the  will  of  another,  and  to  give 
him  much  the  greater  portion  of  the  product  of  his  labor,  there  Slavery 
exists  ;  and  it  is  immaterial  by  what  sort  of  compulsion  the  will  of  the 
laborer  be  subdued.  It  is  what  no  human  being  would  do  without  some 
sort  of  compulsion  (if  not  blows,  then  torture  to  his  will  by  fear  of  starva- 
tion ior  himself  or  his  family)."  * 

■ 

A.   From  1829  to  1844;   New  Forces  and  Old  Issues 

335.  Garrisonian  Abolitionists.  —  The  new  attitude  of  the 
Slave  Power  was  in  some  degree  caused  by  a  new  and  more 
aggressive  antislavery  movement,  known  as  Abolitionism, 
which  cried  out  for  immediate  and  complete  destruction  of 
slavery.  For  some  years  before  1830,  Benjamin  Lundy  had 
published  at  Baltimore  The  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation, 
devoted  to  this  teaching.  In  1828  Lundy  found  a  greater  dis- 
ciple in  one  of  his  assistant  printers,  William  Lloyd  Garrison. 
Young,  poor,  friendless,  in  1831  Garrison  began  in  Boston  the 
publication  of  the  Liberator ;  and  the  first  number  (printed 
on  paper  secured  with  difficulty  on  credit,  and  set  up  wholly 
by  Garrison's  own  hand)  carried  at  its  head  a  declaration  of 
war:  — 

"Let  Southern  oppressors  tremble  ...  I  shall  strenuously  contend 
for  immediate  enfranchisement  ...  I  will  be  as  harsh  as  truth  and  as 
uncompromising  as  justice  ...  I  do  not  wish  to  think,  or  speak,  or 
write  with  moderation  ...  I  am  in  earnest  —  I  will  not  equivocate  —  I 
will  not  retreat  a  single  inch — and  i  will  be  heard." 

To  the  end  this  remained  the  keynote  of  the  Garrisonian 
Abolitionists.  They  sought  to  arouse  the  moral  sense  of  the 
North  against  slavery  as  a  wrong  to  human  nature.  For  long 
years  their  vehemence  made  them  social  outcasts,  even  when 

1  With  the  growing  difficulty  for  a  laborer  to  pass  into  the  class  of 
employers  (§  444),  those  words  of  the  old  slaveholder  have  become  a  clarion 
appeal  for  industrial  and  social  reform  among  us  to-day. 


540  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

they  were  not  iu  danger  of  physical  violence.  Among  the 
group  were  Wendell  Phillips,  a  youth  of  high  social  position 
and  opportunity,  who  forsook  his  career  to  become  the  hated 
and  despised  orator  of  the  Abolition  cause  ;  Whittier,  the  gen- 
tle Quaker  poet,  whose  verse  rang  like  a  bugle  call ;  Theodore 
Parker,  a  Unitarian  minister  of  Boston,  whose  own  denomina- 
tion refused,  in  considerable  degree,  to  fellowship  with  the 
"terrible  pastor  of  Abolition";  and,  at  a  later  time,  James 
Russell  Lowell,  whose  scathing  satire  in  the  Biglow  Papers 
struck  most  effective  blows  for  freedom,  and  whose  established 
position  helped  to  make  Abolitionism  "  respectable." 

Of  this  body  of  agitators,  Garrison  remained  the  most  ex- 
treme. He  could  see  no  part  of  the  slaveholder's  side,  and  he 
dealt  only  in  stern  denunciation  of  all  opponents — and  even 
of  moderate  supporters.  He  and  his  group  had  no  direct  influ- 
ence upon  political  action  against  slavery.  Many  of  them 
disclaimed  desire  for  any  such  influence.  Garrison  once 
burned  in  public  a  copy  of  the  Constitution,  defaming  it  as  "  a 
Covenant  with  Death  and  an  agreement  with  Hell";  and  the 
only  political  action  advocated  by  him  for  Northern  men  was 
secession  by  the  free  States.1 

A  more  reasonable  group  of  Abolitionists  contained  such  men  as 
William  Ellery  Channing  and  Samuel  May  (Unitarian  ministers) ,  Emerson, 
Longfellow,  Gerrit  Smith,  William  Jay,  and  the  aged  Gallatin.  For 
Channing's  logical  but  temperate  and  patient  indictment  of  slavery, 
Garrison,  however,  had  only  abuse.  On  the  moderate  side,  Emerson  at 
first  condemned  the  Garrisonian  extremists  with  unaccustomed  harshness  ; 
but  later  he  said  that  "  they  might  be  wrong-headed,  but  they  were  wrong- 
headed  in  the  right  direction.'''' 

1  So,  too,  Lowell's  "  Hosea  Biglow  "  exclaims  (opposing  war  with  Mexico) :  — 
"  Ef  I'd  my  way,  I  hed  ruther 
We  should  go  to  work  an'  part,-^ 
They  take  one  way,  we  take  t'other,  — 
Guess  it  wouldn't  break  my  heart. 
Men  hed  ought  to  put  asunder 
Them  that  God  has  noways  jined  ; 
An'  I  shouldn't  gretly  wonder 
Ef  there's  thousands  of  my  mind." 


AND  FREE  SPEECH  541 

Other  foes  of  slavery,  like  Lincoln,  rejected  the  name  Abolitionist, 
altogether,  and  believed  that  the  Garrisonian  group  harmed  more  than 
they  helped.  Such  a  charge  is  always  made  against  extreme  reformers. 
Garrison  and  his  friends  did  rouse  bitter  antagonism  and  make  their 
opponents  more  aggressive :  but  they  achieved  their  purpose  by  being 
"  heard. ."  The  nation  would  have  been  glad  to  forget  the  wrongs  of 
slavery:  these  men  made  that  impossible — sometimes  by  exaggerating 
and  misrepresenting  those  wrongs  —  and  they  trusted  to  the  moral  sense 
of  the  people  to  do  the  rest.  They  made  slavery  a  topic  of  discussion  at 
every  Northern  fireside,  —  and  slavery  could  not  stand  discussion. 

336.  Slave  Insurrections.  —  A  slave-holding  community  lives 
always  over  a  sleeping  volcano.  The  unspoken  dread  of  all 
southern  Whites  was  a  possible  slave  insurrection,  with  its 
unimaginable  horrors.  Earlier  in  the  century,  two  plots  had 
been  discovered,  by  fortunate  accidents,  just  in  time  to  avert 
terrible  disaster.     Then,  in  1831,  came  Nat  Turner's  rising. 

Turner  was  a  Negro  preacher  and  slave  in  Virginia.  The 
plot  so  far  miscarried  that  only  a  handful  of,  slaves  took  part ; 
but  sixty  Whites,  including  several  children,  were  ferociously 
massacred,  and,  before  order  was  restored,  a  hundred  Negroes 
(five  times  the  number  in  the  rising)  were  shot,  hanged,  tor- 
tured, or  burned.  The  South  was  thrown  into  a  frenzy  of 
terror  and  rage.  Excited  opinion  charged  that  the  rising  was 
due  directly  to  inflammatory  articles  in  Garrison's  Liberator. 
Southern  States  enacted  stricter  laws  against  the  education 
and  freedom  of  movement  of  slaves,  and  even  of  free  Negroes, 
and  the  legislature  of  Georgia  offered  a  reward  of  $5000  to  any 
kidnaper  who  should  bring  Garrison  to  that  State  for  trial  under 
her  laws  against  inciting  servile  insurrection.  y. 

337.  The  Slave  Power  attacks  the  Rights  of  White  Men. — 
After  1831  the  former  freedom  of  discussion  about  slavery 
vanished  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  Line.  Antislavery 
societies  dissolved ;  antislavery  meetings  could  no  longer  find 
halls  or  audiences ;  antislavery  publications  were  forced  out. 
In  many  cases  these  ends  were  secured  by  mob  violence ;  and 
such  violence,  after  due  warning,  was  sanctioned  by  Southern 
society. 


542  THE  SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

In  1835  James  G.  Birney,  a  Kentuckian  who  had  long  worked  valiantly 
against  slavery  in  Alabama  and  his  native  State,  was  driven  to  move  his 
antislavery  paper  across  the  Ohio  to  Cincinnati.  He  soon  learned  that 
this  change  of  residence  gave  no  immunity  from  personal  violence. 
Within  a  few  weeks  (183G)  his  office  was  sacked,  and  his  life  sought,  by 
a  bloodthirsty  proslavery  mob,  while  respectable  citizens  merely  advised 
him  to  seek  safety  in  silence.  The  year  before,  a  Boston  mob,  "in 
broadcloth  and  silk  hats,"  had  broken  up  one  of  Garrison's  meetings, 
gutted  his  printing  office,  and  dragged  Garrison  himself  through  the 
streets  by  a  rope  around  his  body  —  until  he  was  rescued  and  protected 
by  the  mayor  by  being  jailed.1  And  in  Alton,  Illinois,  the  year  after 
(1837),  mobs  twice  sacked  the  office  of  Elijah  Lovejoy,  an  Abolitionist 
editor,  and  finally  murdered  Lovejoy,  when  he  tried  to  defend  his 
property  from  a  third  assault.  A  free  press  was  the  particular  object  of 
attack;  and  for  many  years  practically  every  Abolitionist  paper  in  cities 
large  or  small  ran  danger  of  such  destruction.  Scores  of  cases  might 
be  enumerated.  For  instance,  in  the  little  frontier  village  of  St.  Cloud, 
Minnesota,  a  proslavery  mob  sacked  the  printing  office  of  Mrs.  Jane  G. 
Swisshelm,  and  threw  her  press  into  the  Mississippi. 

There  was  this  difference  in  the  matter,  hovjever,  between  North  and 
South.  In  the  South,  discussion  ivas  absolutely  strangled.  In  the 
North,  Lovejoy  was  the  only  martyr  to  suffer  death,  —  though  several 
other  mobs  planned  murder,  and  one  victim  was  brutally  tarred  and 
feathered.  But  in  Cincinnati  or  Boston  or  St.  Cloud,  resolute  men  and 
women  found  it  possible  to  continue  the  discussion,  and  eventually  to  win 
a  hearing? 

It  is  curious  to  note  the  cowardice  of  respectable  people  and  of 
property  interests  in  these  conflicts.  Alton,  in  a  measure,  was  depend- 
ent upon  trade  from  the  Missouri  side  of  the  Mississippi.  Cincinnati's 
prosperity,  in  like  fashion,  was  supposed  to  depend  upon  Kentucky 
trade.  In  both  towns  the  cry  arose  that  antislavery  publications  alien- 
ated the  Slave  State  visitors  and  customers,  and  "  hurt  business  ";  and, 
before  this  direful  threat,  mayors,  ministers,  bankers,  and  every  news- 

1  The  mob  was  particularly  vindictive  on  this  occasion  because  a  certain 
Thompson,  an  Englishman,  had  been  advertised  as  a  speaker  at  the  meeting. 
A  favorite  device  of  the  proslavery  fanatics  was  to  represent  Abolition  as  an 
English,  un-American  movement,  designed  insidiously  to  destroy  the  Union. 

2  At  St.  Cloud,  a  mass  meeting,  excited  not  in  behalf  of  Abolitionism,  but 
by  the  attack  upon  free  speech,  promptly  subscribed  money  to  replace  the 
press,  — no  small  thing  in  a  petty  and  moneyless  frontier  village. 


AND  FREE   SPEECH  543 

paper  in  both  cities  were  whipped  into  base  submission,  so  far  at  least 
as  to  counsel  giving  up  all  agitation  of  the  question.  The  student  can 
easily  find  many  parallels  in  a  like  cry  regarding  thoroughgoing  attempts 
at  political  reform  in  American  cities  in  very  recent  days.  They  "  hurt 
business." 

These  attacks  upon  free  speech,  were  ominous  enough  to  all 
men  who  really  cared  for  their  own  rights,  and  they  sum- 
moned to  the  antislavery  cause  many  who  had  never  been 
moved  by  wrong  to  the  Negro.  Still  more  significant  in  this 
respect  were  certain  demands  of  the  South  that  the  National 
government  or  the  Northern  States  should  by  law  stifle  dis- 
cussion. The  story  is  too  long  for  detail ;  but  two  incidents 
can  be  touched  upon,  —  the  frenzied  attempts  of  the  Slave 
Power  to  dictate  Federal  interference  with  the  mails,  and  the 
arrogant  denial  in  Congress  of  the  ancient  "right  of  petition." 

a.  In  1835  a  Charleston  mob  took  certain  Northern  antislavery 
papers  from  the  post  office  for  a  public  bonfire.  Southern  societies  and 
legislatures  were  already  calling  upon  Northern  States  to  prevent  the 
publication  of  such  "  inflammatory"  material,  or  at  least  to  keep  it  from 
spreading  beyond  their  own  borders.  Some  postmasters  in  large 
Northern  cities  showed  a  willingness  to  comply,  —  and  even  did  so, 
during  an  appeal  to  the  Postmaster  General.  This  official  (Amos 
Kendall,  member  of  Jackson's  Cabinet)  practically  justified  the  mob  by 
his  equivocal  words  on  the  matter,  but  was  forced  to  acknowledge  that 
under  existing  legislation  he  had  no  power  to  exclude  any  such  material 
from  the  mails.  President  Jackson  promptly  recommended  Congress  to 
enact  the  necessary  legislation  so  that  "incendiary  publications"  might 
be  excluded.  "But,"  cried  antislavery  men  —  and  many  others  never 
before  so  counted — "Who  is  to  judge  what  is  incendiary?  On  such  a 
charge,  the  Bible  or  the  Constitution  might  be  excluded."  And  after  a 
sharp  struggle,  the  bill  failed  to  pass. 

b.  After  1820,  petitions  poured  upon  Congress  in  ever  increasing  bulk 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  the  ordinary 
course,  such  a  petition  was  referred  to  an  appropriate  committee,  and  if 
ever  reported  upon,  it  was  rejected.  But  in  1836,  the  sensitive  Southern 
members  secured  a  "gag  resolution"  which  each  new  Congress  for  eight 
years  incorporated  in  its  standing  rules,  —  so  that  all  petitions  concerning 
slavery  should  be  "laid  on  the  table"  without  being  discussed  or  printed 
or  "  committed  "  or  read. 


544  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

The  Slave  Power  thought  exultantly  that  it  had  choked  off  discussion. 
Instead,  in  manner  dangerous  to  itself,  it  had  merely  shifted  discussion 
from  the  slavery  of  the  Negro,  to  the  "  right  of  petition  "  by  White  men, 
and  had  taken  one  more  step  in  identifying  the  antislavery  movement 
with  a  traditional  right  of  the  English-speaking  people.  The  "  Old  Man 
Eloquent,"  John  Quincy  Adams,  now  Representative  from  a  Massachu- 
setts district  and  formerly  indifferent  to  slavery,  crowned  his  long  public 
life  with  its  chief  glory  by  standing  forth  as  the  unconquerable  champion 
of  the  right  of  petition,  —  which,  he  insisted,  meant  that  his  constituents 
and  others  had  the  right  not  merely  to  send  petitions  to  the  Congressional 
waste-paper  basket,  but  the  right  to  have  their  petitions  read  and  consid- 
ered. Tireless,  skillful,  indomitable,  unruffled  by  tirades  of  abuse,  quick 
to  take  advantage  of  all  parliamentary  openings,  Adams  wore  out  his  op- 
ponents and  roused  the  country  ;  and  in  1844  the  gag  rule  was  abandoned. 

338.  Political  Abolitionists  :  The  Liberty  Party  and  the  Election 
of  1844.  —  Thus  while  Garrisonian  Abolitionists  were  trying  to 
persuade  the  North  that  slavery  was  a  moral  wrong  to  the 
-Negro,  the  folly  of  the  Slave  Power  called  into  being  a  new 
Abolitionist  party  which  thought  of  slavery  first  and  foremost 
as  dangerous  to  Northern  rights.1  This  party  sought  to  limit 
slavery  by  all  constitutional  means,  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate 
extinction,  and  went  into  politics  to  accomplish  its  ends.  It 
was  strongest  in  the  Middle  and  North  Central  States  ;  and 
among  its  leading  representatives  were  Birney  and  the  young 
lawyer,  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

' '  Like  thousands  of  other  antislavery  men  .  .  .  Chase  was  aroused, 
not  by  the  wrongs  of  the  slave,  but  by  the  dangers  to  free  white  men. 
He  did  not  hear  the  cries  of  the  Covington  whipping  post  across  the  river 
[the  Ohio],  but  he  could  not  mistake  the  shouts  of  the  mob  which  destroyed 
Birney's  property  and  sought  his  life;  and  his  earliest  act  as  an  antislavery 
man  was  to  stand  for  the  everyday  right  of  a  fellow  resident  of  Cincinnati 
to  express  his  mind."  Hart,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  48.  An  autobiographical 
sketch  by  Chase  himself  says  (after  describing  his  indignation  at  the  Bir- 
ney mobbing)  :     "I  was  opposed  at  this  time  to  the  views  of  the  Aboli- 

1 A  parallel  will  suggest  itself  between  this  fact  and  the  remarkable  way, 
in  recent  years,  in  which  the  arrogant  and  open  attempts  of  the  Liquor  inter- 
ests to  dominate  legislatures  and  city  councils  have  driven  into  anti-liquor 
parties  multitudes  of  citizens  who  never  cared  for  the  victims  of  the  saloon. 


TEXAS  545 

tionists  ;  but  I  now  recognized  the  Slave  Power  as  the  great  enemy  of 
freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  and  freedom  of  the  person.  I 
took  an  open  part  against  the  mob.  Of  the  prominent  citizens,  very  few 
stood  decidedly  on  that  side.  .  .  .  From  this  time,  although  not  technically 
an  Abolitionist,  I  became  a  decided  opponent  of  slavery  .  .  .  and  if  any 
chose  to  call  me  an  Abolitionist  ...  I  was  at  no  trouble  to  disclaim  the 
name." 

In  the  campaign  of  1844  the  Birney  Abolitionists  appeared 
as  the  Liberty  party.1  Polk,  the  Democratic  candidate,  was 
squarely  committed,  with  his  party,  to  the  acquisition  of  more 
slave  territory  by  the  annexation  of  Texas  (§  339  If.).  The 
Whigs,  with  Clay  for  their  candidate,  tried  to  sidestep  the 
issue.  As  had  been  hoped,  and  planned,  Birney  drew  enough 
votes  from  Clay  in  the  close  State  of  New  York  to  give  its 
large  electoral  vote  (and  the  presidency)  to  Polk.  The  Liberty 
party  meant  to  force  the  Whigs  into  adopting  antislavery 
principles,  or  to  step  into  their  place  as  the  second  great  party. 

(^/  B.    Slavery  and  Expansion 

y/  339.  Texas  an  Independent  Slave  State.  —  By  the  Louisiana 
purchase,  the  United  States  had  acquired  a  possible  title  to 
Texas  ;  but  by  the  Florida  treaties  of  1819-1821,'  this  claim  had 
been  given  up  (§  261).  In  1821  Mexico  became  independent, 
with  Texas  as  one  of  her  "  States  " ;  and  in  1827  she  decreed 
gradual  emancipation  of  all  slaves.  The  settlers  of  Texas 
were  mainly  Americans  from  the  southwestern  States,  who  now 
prepared  for  rebellion  and  the  formation  of  an  independent 
slave  State.  In  1835  Santa  Anna  made  himself  Dictator  of 
Mexico,  and  prepared  to  consolidate  its  various  "  States  "  — 
which  had  previously  enjoyed  a  large  degree  of  self-govern- 
ment. This  hastened  action  by  the  Texan s.  That  State 
seceded,  adopted  a  constitution  which  recognized  slavery,  and 
chose  "  Sam  "  Houston  president.2     A  Mexican  army  captured 

1  For  the  attitude  and  program  of  the  Liberty  party,  see  their  own  admir- 
able statement,  in  Hart's  Chase,  59-61. 

2  Houston  was  a  Tennessee  Indian  fighter,  and  a  friend  of  Andrew  Jackson. 


546  THE  SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

a  small  Texan  force  in  the  Alamo  (a  fortified  mission)  after 
gallant  resistance,  and  massacred  every  survivor.  Somewhat 
later,  the  main  body  of  Texas  frontiersmen,  under  Houston, 
met  the  Mexican  army  (six  times  their  number)  for  the  decisive 
battle  at  San  Jacinto  (March  2,  1836),  and  charged  with  the 
vengeful  cry,  "  Remember  the  Alamo."  Their  complete  victory, 
and  the  capture  of  Santa  Anna,  established  Texas  in  virtual 
independence,  which  was  promptly  recognized  by  the  United 
States1  and  by  many  European  countries..  Mexico,  however, 
did  not  surrender  her  claims. 

The  Texans  hoped  and  expected  annexation  to  the  United 
States.  There  was  not  yet  much  Abolition  sentiment  in  the 
North  ;  but  there  was  sufficient  opposition  to  further  expansion 
of  slavery  to  make  Northern  members  of  Congress  hesitate. 
The  Texas  which  was  claimed  by  the  Houston  government  was 
an  enormous  territory,  large  enough  to  make  ten  ordinary 
States ;  and  its  annexation  would  mean  a  vast  gain  to  the 
Slave  Power.  President  Jackson  urged  annexation  strenu- 
ously, during  the  closing  months  of  his  term ;  but  Van  Buren 
skillfully  kept  the  question  out  of  discussion.  Tyler  renewed 
attempts  for  annexation,  but  a  treaty  for  that  purpose,  pre- 
sented by  him  to  the  Senate,  was  rejected  by  an  overwhelming 
vote.  Then  the  cry  was  raised  that  England  would  annex 
Texas  if  we  did  not ;  and  the  popular  feeling  for  national  ex- 
pansion was  skillfully  played  upon.  In  1844  the  Democratic 
party  boldly  took  for  its  slogan  "  the  inoccupation  of  Oregon 
and  the  ^annexation  of  Texas."  Their  victory  was  accepted 
by  Congress  as  a  popular  verdict  for  annexation ;  and  in  the 
closing  days  of  the  Tyler  administration  a  "joint  resolution" 
for  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  passed  through  Congress  and 
signed  by  Tyler  {March  3,  1845). 

340-  Excursus  :  Oregon.  —  The  Democrats  had  challenged  England  as 
well  as  Mexico, — in  order  to  reinforce  the  expansion  sentiment  of  the 

1  President  Jackson  hastened  the  recognition  of  Texan  independence  with- 
out the  consent  of  Congress,  in  a  most  arbitrary  manner. 


WAR  WITH  MEXICO  547 

Southwest  with  that  of  the  Northwest ;  and  it  seemed  as  though  now  the 
Polk  administration  might  have  two  wars  on  its  hands.  The  claim  to  all 
of  the  Oregon  country  had  been  summed  up  in  the  campaign  cry,  — 
"Fifty-four  forty  [54°  40']  or  fight."  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
England  would  surrender  her  claims,  so  like  our  own  (§  276),  to  such 
loud  demands  ;  but  wise  moderation  in  both  governments  resulted  in  a 
peaceful  and  sensible  division  of  Oregon,  by  extending  the  boundary  line 
of  the  49th  parallel  (already  adopted  east  of  the  mountains)  through  the 
disputed  district  to  the  Pacific.  This  line  was  practically  identical  with 
the  Northern  watershed  of  the  Columbia  ;  and  it  gave  us  all  that  we 
could  claim  on  the  basis  of  "occupation,"  leaving  to  England  that  half  of 
the  district  which  Englishmen  had  "  occupied." 

341 .  Spoliation  of  Mexico.  —  Presid  en  t  Polk  wanted  California, 
to  which  we  had  no  claim  whatever,  quite  as  much,  as  he  had 
wanted  Texas.  Mexico  was  weak ;  but  Polk  could  not  bully 
her  into  selling  the  coveted  district.  Other  means,  however, 
remained. 

Texas  extended  without  question  to  the  Nueces  River.  Not 
content  with  that  southern  boundary,  she  claimed  to  the  Rio 
Grande  —  on  grounds  worse  than  questionable.  War  with  a 
proud  and  sensitive  people,  like  the  Mexicans,  was  already 
probable  because  of  our  annexation  of  Texas.  For  the  United 
States  to  back  up  this  amazing  Texan  claim  to  Mexican  territory 
was  to  make  war  certain.  General  Zachary  Taylor,  under  ex- 
press orders  from  the  President,  moved  an  American  force  into 
the  disputed  territory  and  on  to  the  Rio  Grande,  where  his 
position  threatened  a  Mexican  city  across  the  river.  The 
Mexicans  demanded  a  withdrawal.  Taylor  refused,  was  at- 
tacked, won  a  victory,  and  crossed  the  river.  Polk  announced 
to  Congress  (May  11,  1846),  "War  exists,  and,  notwithstanding 
all  our  efforts  to  avoid  it,  exists  by  the  act  of  Mexico."  Con- 
gress accepted  the  pretext  and  adopted  the  Avar.1 

The  unjust  war  was  waged  brilliantly.     General  Taylor  in- 

1  One  Southern  slaveholder  had  the  manhood  to  oppose  the  war.  Thundered 
Senator  Benton  of  Missouri :  "  Why  not  march  up  to  fifty-four  forty  as 
courageously  as  we  can  march  to  the  Rio  Grande  ?  Because  Great  Britain  is 
powerful,  and  Mexico  is  weak." 


548  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

vaded  from  the  north,  and  General  Winfield  Scott  advanced 
from  the  Gulf.  The  Mexicans  were  both  brave  and  subtle; 
but  American  armies  won  amazing  victories  over  larger  en- 
trenched forces,  and  the  contest  closed  with  the  spectacular 
storming  of  the  fortified  heights  of  Chapultepec  and  the  cap- 
ture of  the  City  of  Mexico  (September  15,  1847). 

Promptly  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  American  troops  had 
been  dispatched  to  seize  California  and  New  Mexico  (territory 
which  included,  besides  the  modern  States  of  those  names, 
most  of  the  present  Arizona,  Nevada,  Utah,  and  parts  of 
Colorado  and  Wyoming).  In  the  treaty  of  peace  after  ceding 
Texas  as  far  as  the  Rio  Grande,  Mexico  was  forced  to  accept 
$15,000,000  for  this  other  territory.  Two  members  of  the 
President's  Cabinet  wanted  to  take  all  of  Mexico;  but  Polk 
wisely  insisted  upon  a  more  moderate  policy.  To  decide  what 
to  do  with  the  territory  acquired  was  quite  enough  to  keep  us 
busy  for  some  years. 

342.  Gadsden  Purchase ;  Designs  on  Cuba.  —  A  misunderstand- 
ing soon  arose  as  to  some  forty-five  thousand  square  miles  of 
the  '-Mexican  cession,"  just  south  of  the  Gila;  and  Mexico 
threatened  to  fight  again  rather  than  surrender  her  claim. 
Finally,  in  1853,  the  United  States  secured  full  title  by  pay- 
ment of  ten  millions  dollars  more,  through  our  agent,  Gadsden. 

This  Gadsden  Purchase  was  the  last  expansion  of  our  territory  before 
the  overthrow  of  slavery ;  but  it  was  not  the  last  attempt  by  the  Slave 
Power.  Southern  politicians  had  long  looked  with  covetous  desire  at 
Cuba.  In  earlier  years,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  that  island  might 
have  achieved  independence  of  Spain  (with  the  proffered  aid  of  Mexico)  ; 
but  the  Slave  Power  in  American  politics  had  used  its  influence  to  pre- 
serve Spanish  rule,  rather  than  permit  a  free  Cuba,  sure  to  abolish  slavery. 
President  Polk  offered  Spain  a  hundred  million  dollars  for  the  island. 
Then,  about  1854,  Southern  leaders  were  ready  for  a  more  extreme  pro- 
gram, and  began  to  advocate  frankly  the  seizure  of  Cuba  by  force,  to  form 
more  SJave  States,  if  Spain  should  persist  in  refusing  to  sell  it.1     This 

1  In  1851  the  Lopez  "  fillibusters,"  five  hundred  strong,  sailed  from  New 
Orleans  to  invade  Cuba.    This,  and  other  like  attempts  upon  Central  America, 


^M-! 


\jUUM&4 


.  -r-  (M 


\s-<Q 


?•// 


g. 


THE  WILMOT   PROVISO  549 

piratical  doctrine  was  set  forth  with  particular  emphasis  in  that  year  in 
the  famous  Ostend  Manifesto,  a  document  published  in  Europe  by  a  group 
of  leading  American  diplomatic  representatives  there,  with  James  Bu- 
chanan among  them. 

C.   The  Contest  to  Control  the  New  Territory 

343.  Population  and  New  States.  —  Population  increased  in 
the  decade  1840-1850  from  seventeen  to  twenty-three  millions. 
Immigration  from  Europe  now  took  on  large  proportions.  Until 
1845,  no  one  year  had  brought  100,000  immigrants  (cf.  §  272  a). 
That  year  brought  114,000;  1847  (during  the  Irish  famine) 
brought  235,000 ;  and  1849  (after  the  European  "  year  of  revo- 
lution"1) brought  almost  300,000.  This  tremendous  current, 
once  started,  continued  unabated  to  the  Civil  War.  It  still 
came  almost  wholly  from  the  northern  European  countries.  It 
was  composed  mainly  of  laboring  men,  who  naturally  avoided 
the  South  (with  its  slave  labor),  and  crowded  into  Northern 
cities  or  (aided  by  the  great  growth  of  railroads  in  this  decade) 
found  their  way  into  the  farming  regions  of  the  new  Northwest. 
Florida  was  admitted  as  a  State  in  1845;  but  Slavery's  gain 
in  the  Senate  through  the  addition  of  that  State  and  Texas 
was  balanced  by  the  admission  of  Iowa  (1846)  and  Wisconsin 
(1848).  This  situation  gave  especial  importance  to  the  question 
whether  slavery  or  freedom  should  control  the  new  territory  ac- 
quired from  Mexico  (§  344  ff.). 

344.  The  Wilmot  Proviso.  —  The  contest  over  the  annexation 
of  Texas  (1843-1845)  had  drawn  sectional  lines  more  tensely 

may  well  be  studied  by  individual  students,  and  presented  in  special  reports. 
It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  whatever  the  motives  of  the  statesmen  at  Wash- 
ington, the  fillibusters  themselves,  and  the  Southern  people  back  of  them, 
were  impelled  largely  by  the  ancient  land  hunger  and  spirit  of  conquest  and 
adventure  which  had  brought  their  ancestors  to  Virginia  and  had  sent  their 
brothers  to  Texas.    See  Browne's  Lower  South,  pp.  74-77. 

1  Cf.  Modern  History  §  453,  454,  and  note.  The  German  fugitives,  after  the 
failure  of  their  gallant  attempt  at  revolution,  made  an  especially  notable  ad- 
dition to  the  forces  of  Liberty  in  America.  Among  the  immigrants  of  this 
class  were  Carl  Schurz  and  Franz  Sigel. 


550  THE  SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

than  ever  before.  Fire-eating  Southerners  threatened,  "  Texas 
or  disunion " ;  while  a  group  of  Northern  antislavery  con- 
gressmen joined  John  Quincy  Adams  in  a  public  announce- 
ment, that,  in  their  opinion,  the  proposed  annexation,  if  carried 
through,  would  justify  the  North  in  seceding} 

The  antislavery  men  had  failed  finally  to  unite  the  North 
in  opposition  to  annexation,  or  even  to  war  with  Mexico ;  but 
the  struggle  was  at  once  renewed,  with  even  greater  vehe- 
mence, with  reference  to  the  territory  certain  to  be  added  by 
that  war.  California  and  New  Mexico  were  "  free  "  territory,  by 
Mexican  law ;  and,  at  first,  Northern  Whigs  and  Democrats 
agreed  in  resenting  the  idea  that  such  territory  should  become 
"  slave  "  by  passing  into  American  possession. 

As  soon  as  war  began,  the  President  had  asked  Congress  for 
a  grant  of  two  million  dollars  to  enable  him  to  negotiate  to 
advantage.  It  was  understood  that  this  money  was  to  be  used 
in  satisfying  Mexico  for  territory  to  be  taken  from  her.  To 
this  "  Two-Million '  Dollar  Bill "  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, David  Wilmot,  a  Pennsylvania  Democrat,  secured  an 
amendment  providing  that  slavery  shoidd  never  exist  in  any  ter- 
ritory (outside  Texas)  so  acquired.  The  session  expired  (March 
3, 1847)  before  a  vote  was  reached  in  the  Senate ;  and  during 
the  following  months  the  Slave  Power  rallied  its  forces  against 
the  proposal.  Early  in  the  next  session  (February,  1848)  Cal- 
houn presented  the  Southern  program  in  a  set  of  resolutions 
affirming  that,  since  the  territories  were  the  common  domain 
of  all  the  States,  Congress  had  no  constitutional  power  to  for- 
bid the  people  of  any  part  of  the  Union,  ivith  their  property, 
from  seeking  homes  in  that  domain.  This  meant,  of  course, 
the  right  of  Southerners  to  carry  their  slaves  —  and  slave  law 

1  Cf.  Lowell's  words,  quoted  in  note  to  §  334.  The  legislature  of  Mas- 
sachusetts adopted  resolutions  declaring  that  Commonwealth  '  elermined,  as 
it  douhts  not  the  other  States  are,  to  submit  to  undelegated  powers  in  no 
body  of  men  on  earth  "  [a  claim  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  annex  a  new 
State,  like  Texas] ;  and  asserting  that  the  project  of  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
unless  arrested  on  the  threshold,  "  may  tend  to  drive  these  States  into  a  dis- 
solution of  the  Union." 


POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY  551 

—  into  any  "  Territory."  The  Constitution,  it  was  urged,  "  fol- 
lowed the  flag,"  and  the  Constitution,  by  implication  at  least, 
legalized  slavery.  Then,  said  the  South,  when  the  time  for 
Statehood  arrives,  let  the  inhabitants  of  each  Territory  decide 
the  matter  of  slavery  or  freedom  for  themselves,  as  they 
decide  other  questions  of  public  policy,  in  their  first  State 
constitution.  This  was  the  doctrine  to  be  known  later  as 
"  squatter  sovereignty  "  or  "  popular  sovereignty."  It  appealed 
shrewdly  to  a  liking  for  fair  play,  in  claiming  that  the  South 
"simply  asked  not  to  be  denied  equal  rights  ...  in  the 
common  public  domain " ;  and  even  more  powerfully  it 
appealed  to  the  democratic  instincts  of  the  West  by  its 
appearance  of  merely  turning  over  the  whole  question  to  the 
people  most  deeply  interested  (cf.  §  355).  Many  Northern 
congressmen  now  deserted  Wilmot  in  favor  of  "non-inter- 
vention by  Congress,"  while  others  favored  extending  the  old 
line  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific.  The  House, 
on  the  whole,  continued  to  favor  the  Wilmot  Proviso ;  but  the 
plan  was  voted  down  repeatedly  in  the  Senate.  Finally,  the 
country  went  into  the  presidential  election  of  1848  without 
having  settled  any  civil  government  for  the  vast  area  of  our 
recent  acquisitions. 

This  neglect  was  serious.  New  Mexico  and  California  were  seats  of 
ancient  Spanish  settlement  at  such  centers  as  Santa  PC  and  the  various 
Missions  near  San  Francisco ;  and  the  sensitive  and  highly  civilized  pop- 
ulation resented  military  government  by  the  American  conquerors. 
Moreover,  in  January,  1848,  just  before  the  cession  by  Mexico,  gold  was 
discovered  in  California  at  Sutter's  Port  (now  Sacramento)  ;  and  the  vast 
and  varied  immigration  needed  imperatively  a  settled  government. 

345.  Election  of  1848.  —  The  Whigs,  who  had  won  their  one 
success  with  General  Harrison,  tried  to  repeat  their  tactics  of 
1840  by  adopting  no  platform  whatever  and  by  nominating 
another  military  hero,  Zachary  Taylor,  of  Louisiana,  a  slave- 
holder and  a  straightforward  soldier  without  previous  con- 
nection with  politics.  The  Democratic  platform  evaded  all 
mention  of  slavery  and  of  the  burning  Territorial  question; 


552 


THE  SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 


but  the  presidential  candidate  was  Lewis  Cass  of  Michigan, 
the  originator  of  the  "  popular  sovereignty  "  plan  for  Territories. 


The  antislavery  Democrats  had  hoped  to  nominate  Van  Buren,  who 
for  a  time  had  the  strongest  vote  in  the  Convention.1  A  seceding  anti- 
slavery  faction  of    New    York    Democrats  ("  Barnburners  "2),  joined 


1  Democratic  National  Conventions  use  a  "two-thirds  rule,"  in  making 
nominations.    Other  parties  nominate  by  a  majority  vote. 

2  This  name,  derived  from  a  campaign  story  of  a  Dutchman  who  burned 
his  barn  to  get  rid  of  the  rats,  was  applied  in  derision,  because  the  faction 
avowed  a  willingness  to  ruiu  its  party  rather  than  permit  slavery  in  the 


CALIFORNIA  553 

afterward  by  delegations  from  four  other  States,  did  place  Van  Buren  in 
nomination  ;  and,  a  few  weeks  later,  he  was  nominated  also  by  a  new 
Free  Soil  Party,  which  had  absorbed  the  Liberty  Party.  The  Free  Sort- 
ers recognized  frankly  that  Congress  could  not  interfere  with  slavery  in 
the  States,  but  they  insisted  on  its  prohibition  in  the  Territories,  with 
the  cry,  "Free  Speech,  Free  Labor,  Free  Soil,  and  Free  Men.'''' 
They  cast  300,000  votes  (five  times  as  many  as  the  Liberty  Party  four 
years  before).  In  most  of  the  country,  they  drew  mainly  from  the 
Whigs ;  but  in  New  York  their  Barnburner  allies  drew  from  Cass  just 
enough  to  give  that  State  (and  the  election)  to  the  Whigs. 

346.  California  and  the  Vigilantes.  —  The  existing  Congress 
(lasting  until  March  of  1849)  still  declined  to  take  action 
regarding  the  Territories.  Meantime,  California,  lacking  even 
a  Territorial  government,  had  grown  to  the  stature  of  State- 
hood. Thousands  of  "Forty-niners,"  from  all  quarters  of  the 
globe  (but  mainly  from  the  Northern  States  of  the  Union) 
rushed  to  the  rich  gold  fields;  some  around  Cape  Horn  by 
ship ;  some  by  way  of  the  Isthmus ;  but  more  by  wagon  train 
across  the  Plains,  defying  Indians  and  the  more  terrible  Desert, 
along  trails  marked  chiefly  by  bleaching  skeletons  of  their  fore- 
runners. Whenever  rumor  reported  that  some  prospecter  had 
"  struck  it  rich,"  distant  camps  and  towns  were  depopulated 
to  swell  the  new,  roaring  settlement,  —  toward  which,  over 
mountain  paths,  streamed  multitudes  of  reckless  men,  laden 
with  spade,  pickax,  and  camp  utensils.  In  a  few  months, 
the  mining  region  contained  some  eighty  thousand  adventurers. 
To  maintain  rude  order  and  restrain  rampant  crime,  the  better 
spirits  among  the  settlers  adopted  regulations  and  organized 
Vigilance  Committees  to  enforce  them,  with  power  of  life  and 
death. 

347.  The  "  Compromise  of  1850."  —  Immediately  upon  his 
accession  to  office,  President  Taylor  advised  the  people  of  New 


Territories.  The  "  regular  "  faction  of  the  Democratic  Party  in  New  York 
became  known  as  Old  Hunkers.  Party  epithets  were  growing  bitter.  Cass 
and  other  northern  men  who  showed  subserviency  to  the  Slave  Power  were 
coming  to  be  derided  as  "Doughfaces." 


554  THE  SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

Mexico  and  California  to  organize  their  own  State  governments 
and  apply  for  admission  to  the  Union.  The  Californians  acted 
promptly  on  this  suggestion,  and  (November,  1849)  a  conven- 
tion unanimously  adopted  a  "  free  State  "  constitution. 

Taylor  urged  Congress  to  admit  the  new  state.  The  Slave 
Power  raged  at  seeing  the  richest  fruits  of  the  Mexican  War 
slipping  from  its  grasp ;  and  extremists  again  loudly  threatened 
secession.  Said  Toombs  of  Georgia  in  Congress,  "I  .  .  . 
avow  ...  in  the  presence  of  the  living  God,  that  if  .  .  .  you 
seek  to  drive  us  from  California,  ...  I  am  for  disunion." 
The  situation  was  critical.  A  "free"  California  would  give 
preponderance  to  the  North  in  the  Senate ;  and  in  the  North- 
west were  looming  up  a  band  of  future  commonwealths,  from 
Minnesota  to  Oregon,  dedicated  to  freedom ;  while,  outside  the 
Mexican  cession,  there  was  no  prospect  whatever  for  new  slave 
States. 

Clay  proposed  to  reconcile  the  South  to  the  loss  of  Cali- 
fornia by  surrendering  to  them  on  various  other  points  in  dis- 
pute concerning  slavery  (below).  The  straightforward  Taylor 
opposed  compromise,  and  sought  to  keep  faith  by  securing  the 
immediate  and  unconditional  admission  of  California;  and 
probably  he  would  have  carried  the  measure  through  but  for 
his  sudden  death  in  July,  1850.  Millard  Fillmore,  who  suc- 
ceeded from  the  vice  presidency,  gave  his  influence  to  the  com- 
promise arrangement. 

Meantime  the  country  was  aflame,  Every  Northern  legis- 
lature but  one,  Whig  or  Democrat,  passed  resolutions  declar- 
ing that  it  was  the  right  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  the  Territories ;  while  in  the  South,  public  meetings 
and  legislatures  threatened  secession  if  slavery  was  shut  out. 
Clay,  proud  of  his  title  of  "  the  Great  Pacificator,"  hoped,  as 
his  last  public  service,  to  remove  slavery  disputes  from  politics 
for  all  time.  He  pled  for  "a  union  of  hearts  "  between  North 
and  South  through  mutual  concession:  otherwise,  he  feared 
there  was  little  chance  for  the  survival  of  the  political  Union 
which  he  loved.     He  recognized  that  his  proposals  gave  to  the 


THE  COMPROMISE   OF  1850  555 

South  much  more  than  to  the  North ;  but,  he  urged,  the  South 
was  the  party  most  interested. 

His  "  Omnibus  "  measures  (as  finally  passed  in  separate  bills 
after  a  strenuous  eight  months'  debate)  provided  for :  (1)  the 
admission  of  the  "free"  California;  (2)  Territorial  organiza- 
tion of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  on  "  squatter-sovereignty  "  prin- 
ciples; (3)  payment  to  Texas  of  ten  million  dollars  for  the 
relinquishment  of  her  indefinite  claim  to  part  of  "New  Mex- 
ico "  (so  as  to  permit  its  Territorial  organization) ;  (4)  prohi- 
bition of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  and  (5)  a 
new  and  more  effective  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  with  all  the  abom- 
inations of  the  old  one  (§  223). 

The  fourth  provision  was  the  only  real  concession  to  Northern  feeling 
(since  the  admission  of  California  seemed  to  the  North  to  be  only  in 
accordance  with  "  popular  sovereignty  ")  ;  and  this  provision,  in  Clay's 
original  proposals,  was  coupled  with  a  concession  from  the  North, 
agreeing  that  Congress  should  have  no  power  to  interfere  with  inter- 
State  slave  trade,  or  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

The  great  trio,  Clay,  Calhoun,  and  Webster,  so  long  the  dominant 
powers  in  Congress,  all  pass  from  political  life  with  this  debate.  It 
was  Webster  who  really  secured  the  passage  of  the  compromise,  —  espe- 
cially of  that  part  referring  to  the  organization  of  New  Mexico.  He  had 
bitterly  opposed  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  war ;  but  now  he  urged 
that  the  North  owed  concession  to  the  weaker  South.  Moreover,  slave 
labor,  he  was  sure,  could  never  be  profitable  in  sterile  New  Mexico.  It 
was  not  necessary  to  exclude  it  by  law  of  Congress  ;  it  was  already  ex- 
cluded "by  the  law  of  nature."  He  "would  not  take  pains  to  reenact 
the  will  of  God." 

To-day  the  historical  student  is  inclined  to  say  that  this  "  Seventh  of 
March  "  speech  was  dictated  by  deep  love  for  the  Union.  Webster  never 
had  been  optimistic  in  temperament ;  and  now  he  did  not  venture  to  hope 
that  there  could  ever  be  a  better  Union,  while  he  even  began  to  despair  of 
the  continuance  of  the  existing  one  unless  the  South  was  pacified.  At  the 
moment,  however,  the  antislavery  men  of  the  North  felt  that  he  played 
a  traitor's  part  to  the  cause  of  liberty,  and  to  his  own  real  principles,  in 
order  to  secure  Southern  support  for  the  presidency.  The  finest  expres- 
sion of  this  antislavery  wrath  is  in  the  stern  condemnation  of  Whittier's 
Ichabod :  — 


556  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

"  So  fallen  !  so  lost !  the  light  withdrawn 
Which  once  he  wore  ! 
The  glory  from  his  gray  hairs  gone 
Forevermore. 


From  those  great  eyes 

The  soul  has  fled. 
When  faith  is  lost,  when  honor  dies, 

The  man  is  dead." 

So  Horace  Mann  likened  Webster  to  Lucifer  falling  from  Heaven  ;  and 
Emerson  with  barbed  insight  wrote  :  "  Mr.  Webster,  perhaps,  is  only 
following  the  laws  of  his  blood  and  constitution.  ...  He  is  a  man 
who  lives  by  his  memory  :  a  man  of  the  past ;  not  a  man  of  faith  and 
hope.  All  the  drops  of  his  blood  have  eyes  that  look  downward.''''  And 
to  much  the  same  effect  runs  the  modern  judgment  of  Khodes  {History,  I, 
153),  so  far  as  concerns  Webster's  advocacy  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law: 
"Webster  could  see  'an  ordinance  of  nature'  *nd  'the  will  of  God' 
written  on  the  mountains  and  plateaus  of  New  Mexico  ;  but  he  failed  to 
see  .  .  .  the  will  of  God  implanted  in  the  hearts  of  freemen  that  led 
them  to  refuse  their  assistance  in  reducing  to  bondage  their  fellows, 
whose  only  crime  had  been  desire  for  liberty.  .  .  .  His  remarks  .  .  . 
are  those  of  an  advocate  bound  by  the  letter  of  the  law,  fettered  by  tech- 
nicality, and  overborne  by  precedent."  With  the  great  body  of  Northern 
"commercial  Whigs,"  however,  Webster's  influence  seemed  at  the  time 
unimpaired.1 

Calhoun,  despairing  and  broken-hearted,  opposed  the  compromise  as 
ineffective  and  insufficient.  If  the  North  wished  to  preserve  the  Union, 
he  urged,  it  must  concede  some  kind  of  political  equilibrium  on  slavery 
topics  between  itself  and  the  weaker  South.  His  papers,  as  his  death  left 
them  just  afterwards,  show  that  he  meant  to  propose  an  amendment  to 


1  Before  an  audience  of  such  Whigs,  in  Chicago,  the  youthful  colored  orator, 
Frederick  Douglas,  ventured  to  picture  Webster  iu  the  guise  of  a  splendid 
mastiff,  to  whom  the  South  came,  "asa  man  with  a  cracker  in  his  hand,  say- 
ing, 'Daniel  Webster,  stand  up;  Daniel  Webster,  speak!'  And  Daniel 
Webster  stood  up,  and  spoke  as  only  he,  of  all  men  born  of  woman,  is  gifted 
to  speak  —  and  was  damned  from  that  hour!  "  Then  the  audience  became  a 
maddened  mob,  struggling  in  wild  uproar  to  reach  the  platform.  The  magnifi- 
cent outburst  of  indignant  oratory  by  which  Douglas  caught  its  attention 
again  and  turned  it  to  enthusiastic  applause,  has  been  described  to  the  writer 
by  an  eyewitness,  then  a  boy  in  the  audience. 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF   1850 


557 


the  Constitution,  providing  for  two  Presidents,  one  from  each  section, 
with  a  mutual  veto. 

•  More  significant  than  the  attitude  of  these  statesmen  of  a  passing  day 
was  the  appearance  of  a  new  group  of  antislavery  men,  led  by  William 
H.  Seward  of  New  York.  Like  Calhoun,  Seward  opposed  the  compromise, 
but  for  opposite  reasons.  He  decried  compromises  on  the  Slavery  ques- 
tion as  leading  only  to  further  agitation,  and  he  insisted  that  peace  be- 
tween the  sections  could  come  only  with  the  extinction  of  slavery.     As 


558  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

to  the  Territories,  said  he:  "The  Constitution  devotes  the  Domain  to 
.  .  .  liberty.  .  .  .  But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  which 
devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purpose."  Seward  said  only  that  the  higher 
law,  "written  on  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  freemen,"  reinforced  the 
Constitution  ;  but  he  was  understood  by  the  South,  not  incorrectly,  to 
intimate  that,  in  case  of  conflict,  the  Constitution,  where  it  compromised 
for  Slavery,  must  be  amended  or  disregarded. 

For  the  moment,  Webster  and  Clay  prevailed.  But  the  "  Higher- 
Law"  speech  was  to  exert  more  permanent  influence  in  our  history  than 
the  speech  of  "  the  Seventh  of  March."  1 

-<  D.     The  Breakdown  of  Compromise 

348.  Fugitive  Slaves.  —  It  has  been  fitly  said  that  the  Union 
was  maintained  from  1789  to  1820  by  the  compromises  in  the 
Constitution  (§§  201-206),  and  from  1820  to  1861  by  congres- 
sional compromises.  We  have  now  entered  on  the  last  division 
of  this  second  period.  Just  after  1850,  political  leaders  and 
the  mass  of  the  people  were  desperately  anxious  to  convince 
themselves  that  the  Compromise  of  1850  was  final.  Any 
further  discussion  of  slavery  was  severely  reprobated  by  many 
Northern  men.-  But,  exclaimed  James  Russell  Lowell,  "To 
tell  us  that  we  ought  not  to  agitate  the  question  of  slavery, 
when  it  is  that  which  is  forever  agitating  us,  is  like  telling  a 
man  with  the  ague  to  stop  shaking  and  he  will  be  cured." 
The  moral  sense  of  a  large  and  influential  section  of  the  North 
was  at  last  aroused ;  it  could  not  think  about  slavery  without 
fighting  it ;  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Laic  kept  men  thinking  and 
feeling  —  and  fighting.  That  law  was  the  great  mistake  of  the 
Slave  Power.  Had  the  South  been  diplomatically  content  to 
lose  a  few  slaves  who  escaped  into  free  States,2  the  compromise 
might  have  endured  years  longer. 

1  Seward's  striking  and  awakening  phrase  was  probably  suggested  by  words 
of  William  Ellery  Channing,  fourteen  years  earlier  (§  335,  note) :  "  A  higher 
law  than  the  constitution  protests  against  the  action  of  Congress.  .  .  .  Ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  nature,  no  greater  crime  can  be  committed  against  a 
human  being  than  to  make  him  a  slave." 

2  From  1830  to  1860  the  number  averaged  1500  or  1600  a  year.  A  small  in- 
surance would  have  protected  the  owners. 


COMPROMISE  BREAKS  DOWN  559 

In  his  "  Higher  Law  "  speech,  Seward  had  warned  the  South  :  "  You 
are  entitled  to  no  more  stringent  laws,  and  such  laws  would  be  useless. 
The  cause  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  present  statute  is  not  at  all  the  leniency 
of  its  provisions :  it  is  the  public  sentiment  of  the  North.  .  .  .  Your  Con- 
stitution and  laws  convert  hospitality  to  the  refugee  .  .  .  into  a  crime ; 
but  all  mankind  except  you  esteem  that  hospitality  a  virtue.  .  .  .  If  you 
will  have  this  law  executed,  you  must  alleviate,  not  increase,  its  rigors. 
.  .  .  You  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  of  social  progress."  And  Emerson, 
in  an  address  at  Concord,  called  the  law  "a  law  which  every  one  of 
you  will  break  on  the  earliest  occasion — a  law  which  no  man  can  obey,  or 
abet,  without  loss  of  self-respect  and  forfeiture  of  the  name  of  gentleman.11 

The  evils  of  the  Act  were  aggravated  by  its  ex  post  facto  char- 
acter. It  could  be  applied  to  Negroes  who  had  been  living  for 
years  in  the  North  in  supposed  safety  —  since  the  breakdown 
of  the  former  law  of  1793.  Thousands  of  such  men  abandoned 
their  homes  for  hurried  flight  to  Canada ;  and  some  were  actually 
seized  by  slave  hunters.  Indeed,  more  attempts  at  recapture 
of  fugitive  slaves  took  place  in  1851  than  in  all  our  history 
before.  But  now  every  seizure  caused  a  tumult  —  if  not  a 
riot.  Even  "  proslavery  "  men  in  the  North  could  not  stand 
for  the  hunting  of  slaves  at  their  own  doors.  Legislatures 
refused  to  United  States  officials  the  use  of  State  jails,  forbade 
State  officers  to  aid  in  executing  the  law,  and  enacted  various 
"  personal-liberty  laws,"  to  secure  to  any  man  seized  as  an 
escaped  slave  those,  rights  of  jury  trial  and  legal  privilege 
which  the  Federal  law  denied  him.  Some  of  these  State  laws, 
as  interpreted  by  the  State  courts,  amounted  to  downright 
Nullification.1  The  "Underground  Railroad " 2  was  extended 
and  popularized.  In  several  cases,  fugitives  were  rescued  from 
the  officers  in  full  day  by  "  mobs  "  composed  of  such  high- 
minded   gentlemen   as    Thomas  Wentworth   Higginson,  Rev- 

1  The  Wisconsin  legislative  resolutions  of  1859  used  the  words  of  the  old 
Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1799.  See  the  story  of  this  and  other  Wisconsin 
cases  in  Siebert's  Underground  Railroad,  or  Vrooman  Mason's  article  in  Pro- 
ceedings of  Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society  for  1895.  m 

2  An  arrangement  among  Abolitionists  in  the  Border  States  for  concealing 
fugitives  and  forwarding  them  to  Canada.     Special  report. 


560 


THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 


erend  Samuel  May,  and  Gerrit  Smith.  These  men  sometimes 
avowed  their  deed  in  the  public  press,  and  challenged  prosecu- 
tion; and  all  attempts  to  punish  broke  down,  because  no  jury 
would  convict.  When  a  slave  was  returned,  the  recapture 
usually  proved  to  have  cost  the  master  more  than  the  man 
could  be  sold  for.1 


PROCLAMATION ! ! 


THE  GOOD  PEOPLE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS! 

Be  it  known  that  there  are  now 
THREE   SLAVE-HUNTERS   OR   KIDNAPPERS 

IN  BOSTON 

Looking  for  their  prey.    One  of  them  is  called 
"DA  VIS." 

He  is  an  unusually  ill-looking  fellow,  about  five  feet  eight  inches  high, 
wide-shouldered.  He  has  a  big  mouth,  black  hair,  and  a  good  deal  of  dirty 
bushy  hair  on  the  lower  part  of  his  face.  He  has  a  Roman  nose  ;  one  of  his 
eyes  has  been  knocked  out.  He  looks  like  a  Pirate,  and  knows  how  to  be 
a  Stealer  of  Men. 

The  next  is  called 
EDWARD    BARRETT. 

He  is  about  five  feet  six  inches  high,  thin  and  lank,  is  apparently  about 
thirty  years  old.  His  nose  turns  up  a  little.  He  has  a  long  mouth,  long 
thin  ears,  and  dark  eyes.  His  hair  is  dark,  and  he  has  a  bunch  of  fur  on 
his  chin.  ...  He  wears  his  shirt  collar  turned  down,  and  has  a  black 
string  —  not  of  hemp  —  about  his  neck. 

The  third  ruffian  is  named 

ROBERT  M.  BACON,  alias    JOHN  D.  BACON. 

He  is  about  fifty  years  old,  five  feet  and  a  half  high.  He  has  a  red, 
intemperate-looking  face,  and  a  retreating  forehead.  His  hair  is  dark,  and 
a  little  gray.  He  wears  a  black  coat,  mixed  pants,  and  a  purplish  vest.  He 
looks  sleepy,  and  yet  malicious. 

Given  at  Boston,  this  4th  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1851,  and 
of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  the  fifty -fourth. 

God  save  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  ! 


A  Handbill  of  1851,  given  in  Rhodes,  I,  212. 


1  In  February,  1851,  a  mob  of  Negroes  rescued  a  fugitive  out  of  the  hands 
of  Scleral  officers  in  Boston  and  carried  him  in  triumph  through  applauding 
streets,  where,  fifteen  years  before,  Garrison  had  been  dragged  in  ignominy 
by  a  White  mob.    And  when  the  slave  Burns  was  sent  back  to  slavery,  after 


d 


COMPROMISE  BREAKS   DOWN  561 

Still,  in  the  campaign  of  1852,  the  platforms  of  both  the  leading  parties 
indorsed  the  "Compromise"  emphatically,1  with  express  reference  also 
to  the  Fugitive  Slave  provision  ;  and  when  Charles  Sumner  in  the  Senate 
moved  the  repeal  of  that  law,  he  found  only  three  votes  to  support  him. 
In  the  presidential  election,  too,  the  Free  Soil  vote  (i;  Free  Democracy," 
now)  fell  off  a  half;  though  this  was  mainly  because  the  "Seward 
Whigs"  and  many  other  radicals  supported  General  Scott,  the  Whig 
candidate,  who  was  believed  to  be  more  liberal  than  his  platform.2  The 
same  supposition  cost  Scott  the  Whig  vote  in  the  South  ;  and  the  Demo- 
crats easily  elected  Franklin  Pierce.3 


349.  The  "  Know-nothings."  —  One  feature  of  the  election  of 
1852  was  the  prominence  of  a  new  political  part}^  which  called 
itself  the  American  party,  but  which  is  better  known  by  the 
appellation  of  Know-nothings.  From  the  time  of  the  Phila- 
delphia Convention,  bitter  attempts  had  been  made  now  and 
again  to  limit  the  influence  of  foreign  immigrants  in  poli- 
tics.    To  this  "native"  prejudice  there  was  added,  after  the 

bloody  riots  and  a  cost  to  the  Government  of  $100,000,  it  took  eleven  hundred 
soldiers  with  loaded  muskets,  and  a  battalion  of  artillery,  to  convey  him 
through  those  streets,  draped  in  mourning.  Two  or  three  of  the  more  thrilling 
rescues  might  be  looked  up  and  reported  as  a  special  exercise. 

1  The  tendency  among  respectable  classes  at  the  North  to  cling  to  the  Com- 
promise was  especially  notable  in  the  eastern  colleges.  The  students  were 
generally  conservative  and  proslavery.  Andrew  D.  White  says  that  in  the 
Yale  of  the  early  fifties  (when  he  was  a  student  there) ,  "  the  great  majority 
of  older  professors  spoke  at  public  meetings  in  favor  of  proslavery  compro- 
mises," though,  "except  for  a  few  theological  doctrinaires,"  their  personal 
sympathies  were  against  slavery.  The  two  great  Yale  professors  of  the  day 
who  opposed  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  he  adds,  were  generally  condemned  for 
'  hurting  Yale,'  and  driving  away  Southern  students.  Dr.  White,  whose 
Autobiography  will  be  quoted  again  in  the  following  pages,  is  a  distinguished 
scholar,  author,  and  diplomat,  —  the  first  President  of  Cornell  University  and 
in  later  years  Minister  to  Russia  and  to  Germany,  and  a  United  States  repre- 
sentative at  the  First  Hague  Conference. 

2  In  the  Whig  convention,  approval  of  the  Compromise  was  voted  three  to 
one  ;  but  Webster,  the  "  Compromise  "  candidate,  was  defeated  for  the  nomi- 
nation, in  favor  of  a  candidate  supported  by  the  minority. 

8  Pierce,  a  "  dark-horse  "  candidate,  had  been  nominated  in  the  Democratic 
convention  on  the  49th  ballot,  — when  the  two-thirds  rule  had  made  impossi- 
ble the  nomination  of  Cass,  Buchanan,  or  Douglas,  who  had  been  the  leading 
candidates. 


562  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

Irish  immigration  of  the  late  forties,  an  unreasoning  theo- 
logical bigotry,  —  a  silly  fear  of  "  Catholic  "  domination.  The 
new  party  was  a  vast  secret  society,  with  intricate  ramifica- 
tions and  elaborate  hierarchy.  Its  purpose  was  to  exclude 
from  office  all  but  native-born,  and  all  not  in  sympathy  with 
this  program;  but  members  below  the  highest  grade  of  offi- 
cials were  pledged  to  passive  obedience  to  orders,  and  were 
instructed  when  questioned  as  to  party  secrets  to  reply,  "  I 
know  nothing." 

The  movement  was  bigoted  in  character  and  un-American  in  methods  ; 
but  it  gained  considerable  strength  in  eastern  and  southern  States,  and 
elected  several  congressmen.  In  part,  the  movement  drew  its  strength 
from  the  desire  to  ignore  slavery  and  find  new  issues. 

350.  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  —  What  slim  chance 
there  was  that  the  North  might  quiet  down  under  the  iniquity 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  finally  dissipated  by  another 
audacious  measure  in  the  interests  of  slavery.  The  vast 
region  from  Missouri  and  Iowa  to  the  Rockies  was  known  as 
the  Platte  country.  Immigrants  to  California  were  pouring 
across  it ;  and  at  the  assembling  of  Congress  in  December, 
1853,  Senator  Stephen  A.  Douglas  of  Illinois,  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  strove  to  secure  a  needed  Territorial 
organization  for  the  region.  But  his  Kansas- Nebraska  Bill 
proposed  that  two  new  Territories  there  should  be  placed' on 
the  squatter-sovereignty  basis  as  to  slavery.  Douglas  and 
President  Pierce  put  forward  the  surprising  claim  that  the 
Compromise  of  1850  implied  this  form  of  organization  for  all 
Territories  thereafter  formed.  -But  this  district  was  part  of 
the  Old  Louisiana  Purchase,  solemnly  guaranteed  to  freedom 
by  the  Compromise  of  1820.  The  Compromise  of  1850  had 
applied  only  to  territory  just  acquired  from  Mexico:  no  one 
had  dreamed  then  that  it  was  to  repeal  for  old  territory  the 
only  concession  to  freedom  in  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The 
Southern  congressmen  had  not  asked  such  a  thing;  but  now, 
after  a  gasp  of  astonishment,  they  seized  their  chance. 


COMPROMISE  BREAKS  DOWN 


563 


564  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

Most  Northerners  looked  upon  the  move  as  a  wanton  violation  of  a 
sacred  pledge;  but  the  bill  carried  by  a  close  vote,  —  in  the  House,  113 
to  100.  Douglas  tried  to  make  the  bill  a  party  measure ;  but  it  ended 
as  a  sectional  measure.  Half  the  Northern  Democrats  voted  against  it ; 
and  the  other  half,  almost  to  a  man,  lost  their  seats  at  the  next  election. 
All  Southern  congressmen  but  nine,  Whigs  or  Democrats,  voted  for  it. 

351.  The  Struggle  for  Kansas.  —  The  region  was  divided  into 
two  Territories,  with  the  expectation  that  Kansas  at  least  would 
be  settled  by  slaveholders  from  Missouri.  Now  the  struggle 
for  "Bleeding  Kansas"  was  transferred  to  the  country  at 
large.  From  Missouri  thousands  of  armed  slave-owners  poured 
across  the  line  to  preempt  land  —  which,  however,  few  of  them 
made  any  pretence  of  really  settling.  From  the  North, 
especially  from  distant  New  England,  came  thousands  of  true 
settlers,  financed  often  by  the  "Emigrant  Aid  Society,"  and 
armed  with  the  new  breech-loading  Sharpe's  rifle,  to  save 
Kansas  for  freedom.  In  like  fashion,  far-off  Georgia  sent  her 
contingent  of  the  "Sons  of  the  South"  religiously  dedicated 
to  the  cause  of  slavery.  But  once  more  slavery  proved  its 
weakness.  Spite  of  the  closer  vicinity  of  slave  territory,  it 
was  not  easy  to  move  slave  plantations  to  a  new  State, 
especially  to  one  not  particularly  adapted  to  slave  labor ;  and 
the  free-State  settlers  soon  predominated  in  numbers. 

The  Missouri  men  carried  the  first  Territorial  government, 
by  gross  fraud  and  "  repeaters  "  from  "  the  Border  Ruffians  " 
from  across  the  line ;  and  their  legislature  made  it  a  crime 
even  to  question  the  legality  of  slavery  in  the  Territory.  The 
free-State  settlers  tried  (January,  1856)  to  disregard  this 
fraudulent  proslavery  government ;  but  it  was  supported  and 
defended  by  United  States  troops  under  commands  from  the 
President.  Actual  war  was  carried  on  between  the  two 
parties,  and  bloody  murders  were  committed,  both  by  raiders 
from  Missouri  and  by  free-State  fanatics  like  John  Brown.1 

1  Apparently,  Brown  had  become  crazed  by  dwelling  on  the  wrong  of 
slavery  —  which  he  called  "  the  sum  of  all  villainies."  He  was  quite  ready  to 
take  life,  or  to  give  his  own,  in  fighting  it.     But  he  must  not  be  confounded 


AND  THE   SUPREME   COURT  565 

352.  The  Republican  Party  of  1854-1856.  —  Said  Emerson: 
"  The  Fugitive  law  did  much  to  unglue  the  eyes ;  and  note  the 
Nebraska  bill  leaves  us  staring"  That  rash  measure  coalized 
the  formerly  discordant  antislavery  elements  into  one  political 
party.  In  the  next  House  of  Representatives  (1857-1858),  the 
"  Anti-Nebraska  men  "  (Free  Soilers,  Northern  Whigs,  Northern 
Democrats  opposed  to  Douglas'  measure)  drew  together  under 
the  name  Republican.  This  party  took  from  the  Free  Soilers 
the  program  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  all  "  Territories."  It 
adopted  from  the  Whigs,  who  rallied  to  it  in  large  numbers, 
their  broad-construction  views.  And  it  recognized  its  anti- 
slavery  Democratic  element1  by  nominating  as  its  first  candidate 
for  President  a  young  officer  belonging  to  that  party,  John 
C.  Fremont. 

The  first  National  Convention  (1856)  contained  representatives  from 
all  the  free  States  and  from  Maryland,  Delaware,  and  Kentucky.  The 
platform  asserted  that  under  the  Constitution  neither  Congress  nor  any 
Territorial  legislature  had  authority  to  establish  slavery  in  a  Territory, 
urged  a  railway  across  the  continent,  and  pledged  liberal  aid  to  commerce 
by  river  and  harbor  improvement.  Despite  the  sweeping  statement 
regarding  slavery  in  the  Territories,  the  party,  down  to  the  War, 
affirmed  steadfastly  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  in  the  States ;  and  its  leaders  reviled  Abolitionists  almost  as 
violently  as  the  Southerners  did. 

In  the  election,  Fremont  carried  all  the  Northern  States  but  four  ;  the 
Know-nothings  carried  Maryland  ;  and  the  Democrats  elected  their  candi- 
date, James  Buchanan,  by  174  electoral  votes  to  114.  The  Republicans, 
however,  in  this  first  contest,  mustered  1,300,000  votes,  to  1,800,000  for 
the  Democrats. 

353.  The  Dred  Scott  Decision.  —  And  then  (March,  1857)  the 
Supreme  Court  declared  that  both  North  and  South  were  trying 
to  stand   upon  unconstitutional   ground  —  with   a   difference. 


with  ordinary  criminals.  His  murders,  after  all,  represented  a  blind  revolt 
of  the  moral  sense  against  an  unrighteous  system,  —  similar  to  the  crimes  by 
maddened  enthusiasts  in  the  cause  of  social  reform. 

1  The  name  Republican  was  designed  to  indicate  the  purpose  of  going  back 
to  the  true  democracy  of  Jefferson's  original  "Republican  "  party. 


566 


THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 


AND  THE   SUPREME   COURT  567 

Dred  Scott  was  the  slave  of  an  army  officer.  In  1834  his 
owner  had  taken  him  to  an  army  post  in  Illinois,  and,  later,  to 
one  in  what  is  now  Minnesota;  and  then  back  to  Missouri. 
Slavery  could  not  legally  exist  in  Illinois,  because  of  the 
Northwest  Ordinance,  or  in  Minnesota,  because  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise ;  and,  some  years  later,  Scott  sued  for  his  freedom 
on  the  ground  that  he  became  free  legally  when  he  resided  in 
that  free  territory.  The  case  finally  reached  the  Supreme 
Court.  That  august  body  held  that  Scott  was  still  a  slave  and 
had  no  standing  in  court ; x  and  two  thirds  of  the  Court 2  con- 
curred in  the  further  and  uncalled-for  opinion  of  the  Chief 
Justice  (Roger  B.  Taney)  that  neither  Congress  nor  Territorial 
legislature  could  legally  forbid  slavery  in  a  Territory.  The 
Constitution,  said  the  Court,  sanctioned  property  in  slaves,  and 
every  citizen  of  the  Union  must  have  his  property  protected  in 
any  part  of  the  common  national  domain.  Only  a  State  could 
abolish  slavery. 

This  was  a  sweeping  adoption  of  Calhoun's  contention,  and 
the  precise  reverse  of  Republican  doctrine.  According  to  this 
dictum,  the  restriction  upon  slavery  in  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise had  always  been  void  in  law,  even  before  repealed  by 
the  Nebraska  Act.  Quite  as  clearly,  the  opinion  denied  the 
"popular  sovereignty"  idea.  But  in  exchange  for  this  ground 
which  it  was  told  to  surrender,  the  South  was  offered  still  more 
advanced  and  impregnable  proslavery  ground ;  while  the  Re- 
publican North  was  told  that  it  could  have  no  ground  whatever 
to  stand  upon.  The  South  was  advised  that  it  was  seeking 
a  proper  end  (extension  of  slavery  into  the  Territories)  by 
too  modest  and  timid  means :  the  Republican  Party  was 
branded  as  seeking  an  end  wholly  unconstitutional  and 
illegitimate  by  any  means.  It  must  surrender,  or  defy  the 
Court —  "that  part  of  our  government  on  which  all  the  rest 
hinges." 


1  Scott  was  at  once  manumitted  by  his  owner. 

2  Justices  Curtis  and  McLean  presented  powerful  dissenting  opinions. 


568  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

354.  Republicans  denounce  the  Court.  —  Without  hesitation, 
the  Republican  leaders  chose  defiance.  Said  Seward  in  the 
Senate :  "  The  Supreme  Court  attempts  to  command  the  people 
of  the  United  States  to  accept  the  principle  that  one  man  can 
own  other  men ;  and  that  they  must  guarantee  the  inviolability 
of  that  false  and  pernicious  property.  The  people  .  .  .  never 
can,  and  they  never  will,  accept  principles  so  unconstitutional 
and  abhorrent.  ...  We  shall  reorganize  the  Court,  and  thus  re- 
form its  political  sentiments  and  practices,  and  bring  them  into 
harmony  with  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  nature.''''  Lincoln, 
in  public  debate,  even  accused  the  Court  of  entering  into  a  plot 
with  Pierce,  Douglas,  and  Buchanan.  Said  he  :  "  When  we  see 
a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we  know  to 
have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by 
different  workmen  —  Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for 
instance  —  and  when  we  see  these  timbers  joined  together  and 
see  that  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house,  .  .  .  in  such 
a  case,  we  find  it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and 
Franklin  and  Roger  and  James  all  understood  one  another  from 
the  beginning,  and  all  worked  together  upon  a  common  plan, 
drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck." 1  Northern  ex- 
tremists were  ready  to  secede  from  a  Union  dominated  by  such 
"judicial"  law.  Lowell,  on  hearing  of  the  Court's  decision, — 
wrote  to  Charles  Eliot  Norton,  in  Italy :  "  I  think  it  will  do 
good.  It  makes  slavery  national,  as  far  as  the  Supreme  Court 
can.  So  now  the  lists  are  open,  and  we  shall  soon  see  where  the 
stouter  lance  shafts  are  grown,  North  or  South." 


1  This  amounted  to  a  charge  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  had  been 
arranged  to  lead  up  to  the  more  sweeping  doctrine  of  the  Dred  Scott  case ;  and 
that  the  Democratic  leaders  had  been  assured,  long  in  advance,  that  the 
Court  would  announce  this  doctrine  when  the  time  came.  Seward  made  the 
same  charge,  in  the  Senate,  in  more  offensive,  though  less  effective,  manner, 
referring  to  "whisperings"  between  the  President  and  the  Chief  Justice. 
"  Buchanan  approached  .  .  .  the  Supreme  Court,"  said  he,  and  "The  Court  did 
not  hesitate  to  please  the  incoming  President."  In  either  form,  the  charge  is 
without  evidence  to  support  it.  • 


(?     ^      V    ^f  C  A      \>  =*-\^        - 

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS  DEBATE  569 

More  temperately,  but  quite  as  decidedly,  the  influential  Springfield 
Republican  said :  "  The  majority  of  the  Court  rushed  needlessly  to  the 
conclusions,  and  are  justly  open  to  suspicion  of  being  induced  to  pro- 
nounce them  by  partisan  or  sectional  influences.  ...  In  this  country, 
the  court  of  last  resort  is  the  people.  They  will  discuss  and  review  the 
action  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and,  if  it  presents  itself  as  a  practical  issue, 
they  will  vote  against  it."  And  Lincoln,  in  his  more  judicial  mood,  defend- 
ing the  Republican  party  against  the  Democratic  cry  that  it  "resisted" 
the  Supreme  Court  replied:  "Who  has  .  .  .  declared  Dred  Scott  free,  or 
resisted  the  authority  of  his  master  over  him  ?  .  .  .  But  we  think  the 
decision  erroneous.  We  know  that  the  Court  has  often  overruled  its 
own  decisions  ;  and  ice  shall  do  what  ice  can  to  have  it  overrule  this  one. 
We  offer  no  resistance  to  it." 

In  the  same  debates,  Lincoln  exposed  the  real  fallacy  in  the  "  popu- 
lar sovereignty  "  plea.  The  "  people  most  interested  "  were  the  slaves, 
said  he,  and  they  were  not  consulted.  "  I  admit  that  the  emigrant  to 
Nebraska  is  competent  to  govern  himself ;  but  I  deny  his  right  to  govern 
any  other  person  without  that  person's  consent." 

355.  Lincoln-Douglas  Debate,  1858.  —  The  congressional  elec- 
tions of  the  next  year  showed  great  Republican  gains,  and  that 
party  became  the  strongest  of  the  four  or  five  into  which  the 
lower  House  was  now  split.  Douglas,  "  Little  Giant "  of  de- 
bate, was  himself  returned  to  the  Senate  only  after  a  desperate 
campaign,  made  famous  by  a  series  of  joint  debates  between 
him  and  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Lincoln  was  defeated,  but  he  attained  his  deliberate  purpose. 
His  acute  and  persistent  questions  forced  Douglas  to  choose 
between  the  new  doctrine  of  the  Supreme  Court  —  to  which  the 
South  now  clung  vociferously  —  and  his  own  old  doctrine  of 
squatter  sovereignty  —  which  was  certainly  as  far  as  Illinois 
would  go.  If  he  placed  himself  in  opposition  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  he  would  not  be  able  to  secure  Southern  support  for  the 
presidency  at  the  next  election  —  to  which  men's  eyes  were 
already  turned.  If  he  did  not  oppose  the  Court,  he  would  lose 
the  Senatorship  and  Northern  support  for  the  presidency.  In 
any  case,  the  Democratic  party  would  be  robbed  of  its  most 
formidable  candidate  in  1860.     Douglas  was  driven  to  main- 


570  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

tain  that  the  legislature  of  a  Territory,  despite  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  could  keep  slavery  out  by  "  unfriendly  legislation," 
if  it  so  wished.  This  admission  was  to  make  Lincoln  Pres- 
ident in  1861. 
^/  356.  John  Brown  Raid  and  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.  —  Two  other 
events  must  be  noticed,  before  we  take  up  the  fateful  election 
of  1860. 

a.  In  1859  John  Brown  (§  351)  attempted  to  arouse  a  slave 
insurrection  in  Virginia.  He  seems  hardly  to  have  compre- 
hended the  hideous  results  that  would  have  followed  a  suc- 
cessful attempt.  He  planned  to  establish  a  camp  in  the 
mountains  to  which  Negro  fugitives  might  rally ;  and  his 
little  force  of  twenty-two  men  seized  the  arsenal  at  Harper's 
Ferry,  to  get  arms  for  slave  recruits.  The  neighboring  slaves 
did  not  rise,  as  he  had  hoped  they  would,  and  he  was  cap- 
tured, after  a  gallant  defense.  Virginia  gave  him  a  fair  trial; 
and  he  was  convicted  of  murder  and  of  treason  against  that 
commonwealth.  His  unshaken  fortitude  and  his  death  made 
his  scaffold  more  formidable  to  slavery  than  ever  the  living 
man  had  been.  The  South  began  to  feel  that  slavery  would 
never  be  safe  within  the  Union  unless  the  whole  Union 
adopted  the  institution.  The  North  in  general  condemned 
Brown's  action ;  but  its  condemnation  was  tempered  by  a  note 
of  sympathy  and  admiration  for  the  man  that  sounded  ominous 
to  Southern  ears. 

b.  In  1852  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  had  written  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,  one  of  the  greatest  moral  forces  ever  contained 
between  book  covers.  The  volume  contained  many  errors,  and 
presented  an  exaggerated  view  of  the  miseries  of  slavery,  under 
ordinary  Southern  conditions ;  but  it  did  its  great  work  in 
making  the  people  of  the  North  realize  that  the  slave  was  a 
fellow  man  for  whom  any  slavery  was  hateful.  It  was  noted 
that,  when  the  stoiy  was  dramatized,  the  Bowery  gangs  in  the 
New  York  theaters,  who,  out  of  doors  were  ready  to  mob 
Abolitionists,  went  wild  with  sympathy  and  grief  for  the  fugi- 
tive slave  mother.     The  tremendous   influence   of   the   book, 


-  ■  --.  ' , 

"BLEEDING  KANSAS"  571 

however,  despite  its  enormous  stir,  was  not  really  felt  for 
some  years.  Such  books  exercise  their  deepest  control  upon 
the  young ;  and  the  boys  of  fourteen  to  sixteen  who  read  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin  in  1852-1855  were  just  ready  to  give  their  vote  to 
Abraham  Lincoln  in  1860.  This  explains  in  part,  too,  why 
the  college  youth,  who  had  been  generally  proslavery  in 
1850  (§  349),  left  the  college  halls  vacant  in  1861-1865  to 
join  the  Northern  armies. 

357.  The  Buchanan  Administration.  —  In  1857  the  free-State 
men  won  the  Kansas  elections  so  overwhelmingly  that  the  pro- 
slavery  organization  could  no  longer  expect  open  support  from 
Washington.  The  expiring  proslavery  legislature,  however, 
still  provided  for  a  proslavery  convention,  which  met  at 
Lecompton  (November,  1857).  President  Buchanan  had  pur- 
chased for  that  body  the  privilege  of  meeting  in  peace  by  promis- 
ing that  its  work  should  be  submitted  to  popular  vote.  This 
pledge  was  not  kept.  The  convention  arranged  a  "  constitu- 
tion with  slavery  "  and  a  "  constitution  with  no  slavery,"  which 
last,  however,  left  in  bondage  the  slaves  then  in  the  Territory,  and 
forbade  the  residence  of  free  Negroes.  At  the  promised  elec- 
tion, the  voters  were  permitted  merely  to  choose  between  these 
two  constitutions:  they  were  given  no  opportunity  to  reject 
both. 

The  free-State  men  kept  away  from  the  polls  ;  and  the  "  con- 
stitution with  slavery  "  carried  overwhelmingly,  six  thousand 
to  less  than  six  hundred.  But  the  new  free-State  legislature 
provided  for  a  new  and  proper  expression  of  opinion.  This 
time  the  proslavery  men  abstained  from  voting ;  and  the  two 
constitutions  together  received  less  than  two  hundred  votes, 
to  more  than  ten  thousand  against  both  of  them.  Still,  the 
South  and  the  Administration  at  Washington  strove  violently 
to  secure  the  admission  of  the  State  with  the  Lecompton  pro- 
slavery  constitution,  pretending  to  regard  the  first  election  as 
valid.  This  nefarious  attempt  to  rob  the  people  of  their  will 
was  defeated  by  the  warm  opposition  of  Douglas,  who  at  least 
remained  true  to  his  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  as  he  had 


572  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

before  expressed  it.  The  Slave  Power  succeeded,  however,  in 
getting  Congress  to  submit  the  Lecompton  constitution  to  the 
people  of  Kansas  for  the  third  time,  with  a  dazzling  bribe  of 
public  lands  if  they  should  accept  it.  Kansas  refused  the 
bribe,  eleven  thousand  to  two  thousand.  Even  then,  the  Demo- 
cratic Senate  would  not  vote  to  admit  the  State  with  a  "  free  " 
constitution;  and  Kansas  statehood  had  to  wait  until  1861. 
Meantime,  two  other  free  States  had  come  in,  to  establish 
Northern  supremacy  in  the  Senate,  —  Minnesota  (1858)  and 
Oregon  (1859). 

The  President  made  other  earnest  efforts  to  extend  the  realm  of  slavery. 
His  first  Message  recommended  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  and  of  parts  of 
Central  America  and  Mexico.  In  the  light  of  his  connection  with  the 
Ostend  Manifesto  (§  342),  such  utterances  pointed  ominously  to  highway- 
man methods  ;  but  no  action  resulted.  Nor  was  time  given  for  anything 
to  come  of  the  loud  demands  now  voiced  in  the  South  for  the  legalizing  of 
the  foreign  slave  trade. 

E.   The  Contest  for  Supremacy  in  1860 

358.  Programs  and  Nominations.  —  In  February,  1860,  Jeffer- 
son Davis  of  Mississippi  introduced  into  the  Senate  a  set  of 
resolutions  affirming  the  duty  of  Congress  to  defend  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  and  condemning  the  Douglas  doctrine  of  pos- 
sible "  unfriendly  legislation  "  as  unconstitutional.  His  united 
Southern  support  was  notice  that  the  Slave  Power  would  in- 
dorse no  man  for  the  presidency  who  would  not  accept  these 
principles. 

Amid  the  tense  excitement  of  the  whole  country,  the  Demo- 
cratic National  Convention  met  at  Charleston  in  April.  A 
majority  of  the  delegates  favored  Douglas'  nomination,  but  the 
fight  came  on  the  platform.  Resolutions  according  with  the 
Davis  program  were  defeated,  in  favor  of  more  moderate 
ground.  A  strong  minority  of  Southern  extremists  at  once 
withdrew ;  and,  after  ten  days  of  fruitless  negotiation  between 
the  two  wings,  the  Convention  adjourned,  to  meet  at  Baltimore 
in  June, — at  which  session    Douglas   was   nominated.     The 


ELECTION  OF   1860  573 

seceders  then  placed  in  nomination  John  C.  Breckenridge  of 
Kentucky  upon  their  extreme  platform.    Jtj-- 

Meantime,  conservative  representatives  of  the  old  Whig  and 
Know-nothing  parties  organized  as  the  Constitutional  Union 
Party ;  and  their  Convention  (May  9)  nominated  John  Bell  of 
Tennessee,  announcing  the  compromise  platform,  "  No  consti- 
tutional principles  except  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  the 
Union  of  the  States,  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws." 

A  week  later,  the  Republican  Convention  met  at  Chicago  in 
a  vast  "wigwam,"  amid  wild  enthusiasm  from  thousands  of 
spectators.  Seward  was  at  first  the  leading  candidate ;  but  he 
had  many  personal  enemies,  and  the  more  moderate  Republi- 
cans looked  upon  him  as  a  theorist  rather  than  a  practical  man. 
The  third  ballot  nominated  Abraham  Lincoln,  who  was 
expected  to  be  strong  against  Douglas  in  Illinois,  one  of  the 
doubtful  States.  The  platform  declared  for  protection,  and 
for  a  free  Homestead  Bill  (§  367),  denounced  strenuously  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  {claiming  that  the  normal  condition  of  the 
Territories  was  free,  not  slave),  and  demanded  the  immediate 
admission  of  Kansas  with  her  free-State  constitution. 

Lincoln  was  a  strong  candidate  from  the  first,  and  his  cause  was  skill- 
fully handled.  On  the  morning  of  the  nomination,  the  Seward  men  paraded 
the  city  in  imposing  fashion  ;  but  when  they  reached  the  wigwam  they 
found  the  center  of  the  hall  filled  with  a  solid  mass  of  Lincoln  supporters 
(including  some  men  whose  stentorian  lungs  were  their  chief  recommenda- 
tion) ;  and  grave  observers  believed  that  the  greater  volume  of  Lincoln 
noise  had  much  to  do  with  deciding  wavering  delegations.  Moreover,  the 
result  was  due  immediately  to  an  unhappy  bargain  made  by  Lincoln's 
managers  with  Senator  Cameron,  the  political  boss  of  Pennsylvania. 
Cameron  transferred  fifty  delegates  pledged  to  himself  into  the  Lincoln 
column,  in  return  for  a  promise  of  a  place  in  the  Cabinet.1  Lincoln  knew 
nothing  of  this  at  the  time,  and,  indeed,  had  expressly  forbidden  any  such 
"bargains"  in  his  behalf  ;  but  afterwards  he  made  the  pledge  good  — 
until  Cameron  became  "  impossible." 


1  Pennsylvania  was  one  of  the  doubtful  States ;  and  the  platform's  emphasis 
on  protection  was  calculated  to  appeal  to  her  manufacturing  interests. 


574  THE   SLAVERY  STRUGGLE 

Most  New  England  Republicans  were  deeply  grieved.  They  believed 
that,  in  passing  by  Seward,  principle  had  been  sacrificed  to  a  mistaken 
idea  of  expediency  ;  and  they  looked  upon  Lincoln  as  not  only  obscure, 
but  ignorant,  uncouth,  and  incapable.  Most  of  his  support,  indeed,  came 
from  men  who  regarded  him  as  "  available  "  rather  than  particularly 
desirable.  Almost  no  one  of  prominence  yet  dreamed  of  the  wise,  patient, 
steadfast,  far-seeing  man,  of  homely  grandeur,  that  the  next  years  were 
to  reveal. 

359.  Meaning  of  the  Contest.  —  With  the  Democratic  party 
hopelessly  divided,  Republican  victory  in  the  electoral  college 
was  almost  certain.  To  the  South,  that  prospect  was  alarm- 
ing. The  Republican  platform  had  once  more  reasserted  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States ; 
but  in  the  1858  debate  with  Douglas,  Lincoln  had  said  boldly 
and  sagaciously :  — 

"  *  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  believe  this  gov- 
ernment cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other."  So,  even  more  impressively  at  the 
time,  Seward  had  said  of  the  slavery  struggle :  "It  is  an  irrepressible 
conflict  .  .  .  and  it  means  that  the  United  States  must,  and  will,  sooner 
or  later,  become  entirely  a  slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation." 

Armed  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  the  South  meant  to 
make  the  nation  all  a  slaveholding  nation,  and  it  saw  that 
these  speeches  represented  the  real  platform  to  which  the 
Republican  Party  would  have  to  come.  Republican  success 
would  mean  eventually  a  reyersal  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
continued  progress  toward  Lincoln's  "  nation  all  free,"  if  the 
nation  held  together  at  all. 

The  South  did  not  shrink.  Deliberately,  in  advance,  it 
•  made  preparations  to  break  up  the  Union  and  save  slavery. 

North  and  South  no  longer  understood  each  other.  In  the 
seventy  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  North 
had  moved  steadily  toward  new  intellectual  and  moral  stand- 
ards and  a  new  system  of  industry :  the  South  had  remained 
stagnant.     As  a  Southern  writer  said:    "The  whirl  and  rush 


low 


PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION 
OF  1860 

From  Chadwick's    Causes  of  the  Civil  War,   Copyright, 

by  Harper  &  Brothers 


SCALE  OF    MILES 


0      50   100  200         300  400  500  600 

□       □       n        n 


LINCOLN  BRECKENRIDGE 


BELL 


Circle*  show  next  highest  vote  for  each  candidate  as  above- 
Numbers  show  vote  cast  for  highest  and  next  highest. 
Gothic  Numbers  thus;  4  shotv  electoral  vote  of  state- 
Electoral  vote  of  Stic  Jersey  was  divided:  4  for  Lincoln,  8  for  Douglas, 
Breckenridge  received  44-7  per  cent  of  the  Southern  vote,  and  Bell  received ' 


110'' 


Longitude 


L    F         OF 


M     E     X 


l    c    o      M  H  baHa^ 


ELECTION  OF   1860  575 

of  progress  encompassed  the  South  on  every  side.  .  .  .  Yet 
alone  in  all  the  world  she  stood  unmoved  by  it."  The  North  had 
adopted  the  new  Websterian  views  of  the  Constitution,  in 
accord  with  modern  needs :  the  South  clung  to  the  old,  out- 
grown views  expressed  by  Calhoun.  The  great  Protestant 
denominations'  —  Baptists,  Methodists,  Presbyterians  —  had 
already  split  apart  into  distinct  churches,  North  and  South, 
on  the  slavery  issue.  Southern  associations  were  forming, 
pledged  to  non-importation  of  Northern  manufactures,  with  a 
preference  for  importation  from  England.  The  North  con- 
demned the  South  as  a  community  built  upon  a  great  sin : 
the  South  despised  and  reviled  the  North  as  a  race  of 
"mudsills"  and  cheats,  and  boasted  its  own  higher  sense  of 
honesty  and  honor.  Unity  was  already  gone  in  hearts,  in 
industry,  in  religious  organizations.  It  was  going  in  com- 
mercial intercourse.  It  could  not  long  endure,  on  such  terms, 
politically.  The  election  was  to  prove  that  neither  section 
would  surrender  peacefully  to  the  demands  of  the  other.1 

360.  The  Vote.  —  Lincoln  carried  every  Northern  State 
(including  California)  except  for  three  of  the  seven  New 
Jersey  electors.  Douglas  received  only  those  three  votes  and 
the  nine  from  Missouri,  though  his  popular  vote  was  nearly  as 
large  as  Lincoln's  even  in  most  of  the  States  which  "went 
Republican."  Bell  carried  the  moderate  Border  States, 
Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  All  the  other  Southern 
States  went  to  Breckenridge.  Lincoln  had  180  electoral  votes 
to  163  for  his  three  competitors  combined ;  but  in  the  popular 
vote,  he  had  only  1,857,610  out  of  a  total  of  4,645,390.2  The 
victory  was  narrow ;  and  it  was  the  victory  of  a  divided  section 
over  a  weaker  but  more  united  section.  Before  Christmas, 
secession  had  begun  (§  369). 

1  Cf .  §  134,  for  the'similar  growing  apart  of  two  sections  as  a  cause  of  the 
Revolution. 

2  The  popular  vote  for  the  other  candidates  stood  :  Douglas,  1,291,574  ; 
Breckenridge,  850,082  ;  Bell,  646,124.  Either  Breckenridge' s  or  Bell's,  added 
to  Douglas',  exceeded  Lincoln's  total, 


576  THE   UNITED  STATES   IN   1860 


F.    On  the  Eve 

(To  prepare  for  this  Division,  the  student  is  advised  to  review  §§  124, 
244-251,  263,-  272-273,  and  especially  285-293.  The  intellectual  move- 
ment which  began  in  1830-1845  continued  unabated  to  the  sixties ;  but  it 
has  been  treated  in  §§  292-293  so  fully  that  no  further  account  is  given 
here.) 

361.  Varying  Viewpoints.  —  We  have  treated  the  period  1845- 1860 
only  in  regard  to  the  struggle  for  the  extension  or  restriction  of  slavery. 
To  most  men  of  the  time  these  years  had  a  more  engrossing  aspect. 
The  era  was  one  of  marvellous  material  prosperity.  Comforts  and  luxuries 
multiplied  as  never  before.  In  the  twenty  years  following  the  panic  of 
1837,  wealth  increased  fourfold,  —  for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  faster 
than  population.  Men  were  absorbed  in  a  mad  race  to  share  these  new 
opportunities.  They  were  compelled  to  stop,  in  a  degree,  for  the  slavery 
discussion,  but  the  majority  regarded  it  as  an  annoying  interruption  to 
the  real  business  of  life. 

362.  Commercial  Fortunes.  —  Between  1850  and  1857,  rail- 
way mileage  multiplied  enormously.  In  the  old  Northwest, 
it  grew  twenty  times  as  fast  as  population  (from  one  mile  for 
19,000  people  to  one  for  900) ;  and  the  map  took  on  its  modern 
gridiron  look.  Lines  reached  the  Mississippi  at  ten  points, 
and  some  projected  themselves  into  the  unsettled  "  plains." 1 
With  the  railway,  or  ahead  of  it,  spread  the  telegraph;  and 

1  Railway  extension  had  been  assisted  materially  by  National  land  grants, 
like  those  to  canals  in  the  earlier  period.  In  1850  three  million  acres  were 
given  to  Illinois  for  the  Illinois  Central  (alternate  sections  along  both  sides  of 
the  proposed  route) ,  and  (as  designed)  the  State  legislature  then  transferred  this 
domain  to  the  Company  building  the  road.  Immense  grants  of  like  character 
were  made  to  other  western  and  southwestern  States.  In  1856  twenty  million 
acres  were  given  away.  Mild  attempts  of  legislatures  to  couple  their  transfers 
to  the  railways  with  conditions  to  secure  the  public  interest  achieved  no 
marked  success  in  this  period. 

Most  of  the  mileage  was  still  single-track,  with  rickety  roadbed  and  flimsy 
rolling  stock,  and  without  unity  of  management.  Delays  were  annoying  ; 
connections,  uncertain  and  sometimes  wanting  ;  and  accidents  appallingly 
common  and  destructive.  Sleeping  cars  were  not  yet  in  use.  The  fast- 
est time  between  New  York  and  Chicago  (38  hours)  was  twice  that  of  the 
year  1912. 


NATIONAL  PROSPERITY  577 

mail  routes  took  swift  advantage  of  rail  transportation.  In 
1851,  Congress  reduced  letter  postage  to  three  cents  per  half 
ounce  for  any  distance  under  three  thousand  miles.1 

Thus  began  the  era  of  commercial  combinations  (with  its 
necessary  handmaids,  swift  transportation  and  instant  and 
cheap  communication) ;  and  great  fortunes  piled  up  beyond 
previous  dreams.  Even  for  labor,  the  period  was  a  golden  age. 
-Between  1840  and  1860,  wages  rose  20  per  cent,  while 
prices  rose  on  the  average  only  2  per  cent.  Pauperism  was 
unobtrusive,  and,  to  foreign  observers,  amazingly  rare. 

363.  Changes  in  Routes  and  Centers.  —  Until  1850,  the  more 
distant  West  —  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  south- 
ern Illinois  —  had  remained  tributary  commercially  to  New 
Orleans,  by  the  river.  Now,  with  the  development  of  rail 
routes,  this  new  Northwest  suddenly  faced  toward  New  Eng- 
land and  began  even  to  feed  Europe.  This  change  in  trade 
currents  was  more  than  merely  economic  :  it  killed  the  last  hope 
of  the  South  for  continued  political  alliance  with  the  West.  The 
moral  awakening  on  the  subject  of  slavery  had  done  much  to 
draw  the  West  away  from  its  old  political  connections,  and  to 
ally  it  with  the  Northeast.  The  new  commercial  ties  hastened 
the  process.  If  the  break  between  sections  had  come  in  1850 
instead  of  1860,  it  is  not  so  sure  that  the  West  would  not 
have  sided  with  the  South. 

Between  1850  and  1860,  grain  crops  swelled  from  100,000,000  bushels 
to  171,000,000  ;  and  half  the  total  came  now  from  the  Northwest.  Graz- 
ing, too,  ceased  to  be  an  eastern  industry,  passing  to  the  far  West  and  to 
Texas.  In  the  East,  however,  manufactures  enjoyed  a  marvelous  growth 
—  in  just  this  era  of  low  tariffs,  1842-1861  (§  321).  In  1850,  for  the  first 
time,  the  value  of  manufactured  products  excelled  that  of  agriculture 
(.$1,055,000,000  to  $994,000,000)  ;  hut  the  census  of  1860,  after  the  panic 
of  '57,  again  showed  agriculture  slightly  in  the  lead.  Our  exports  still 
came  almost  exclusively  from  agriculture,  though  we  had  begun  to  send 
cheap  grades  of  cotton  cloth  to  South  America  and  the  Orient. 

1  For  greater  distance,  it  was  six  cents.  The  rate  had  been  reduced  twice 
before  since  1800  (§  247).     In  1850,  it  was  five  cents  for  three  hundred  miles. 


\ 


578  THE  UNITED   STATES  IN   1860 

England's  repeal  of  her  Corn  Laws  (Modem  History,  §  544)  was  one 
incentive  to  American  agriculture  for  export  in  this  period,  while  our  own 
low  tariffs  encouraged  imports.  Foreign  trade  mounted  by  leaps  ;  and 
three  fourths  of  it  was  carried  in  American  shipping.  In  1860  our  mer- 
chant marine  exceeded  that  of  England.1 

Thus  the  twenty  years  preceding  the  Civil  War  saw  an  industrial 
transformation.  There  was  no  such  revolution  as  marked  the  transition 
from  the  Domestic  to  the  Factory  system  (§  248)  ;  but  machinery,  espe- 
cially agricultural  machinery,  was  multiplied  and  improved  in  marvelous 
fashion  —  too  complicated  for  description  outside  a  special  treatise,  but 
easily  making  one  farm  laborer  worth  more  than  three  in  earlier  years. 

As  with  the  growth  of  railways,  so  this  development  of  machinery 
had  an  indirect  social  result  more  important  than  its  economic  value.  The 
improved  reapers  and  threshers,  it  has  been  said,  won  the  Civil  War. 
Without  them,  Northern  grain  fields  could  never  have  spared  the  men 
who  marched  with  Grant  and  Sherman.  As  it  was,  the  Northwest,  with 
half  its  grown  men  under  arms,  increased  its  agricultural  output  during  the 
war. 

364.  Beginnings  of  More  Distant  Communications.  — The  acquisition 
of  California  had  been  followed  by  a  swift  expansion  of  trade  with  Asia. 
Hawaii  had  been  brought  under  American  influence  previously  by  Ameri- 
can missionaries  and  traders ;  and  in  1844  China  was  persuaded  to  open 
up  five  "treaty  ports"  to  American  trade.  Japan  continued  the  ori- 
ental policy  of  exclusion  of  foreigners  until  1854,  when  Commodore  Perry, 
in  pursuance  of  orders  from  Washington,  entered  Japanese  ports  with  his 
fleet  of  warships  and  secured  a  commercial  treaty  —  which  began  the 
transformation  of  Japan  into  a  modern  nation. 

After  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California  (and  with  the  opening  of 
these  prospects  of  Oriental  trade)  the  question  of  transportation  across 
the  Isthmus  at  once  arose.  Both  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
tried  to  secure  control  of  routes  for  a  canal  from  ocean  to  ocean  ;  and  in 
1850  the  Clayton  Bulwer  treaty  agreed  that  any  canal  across  those  nar- 
row lands  should  be  neutral,  and  subject  to  common  control  by  the  two 


1  Relatively,  however,  a  decline  had  already  set  in.  Americans  clung  to 
the  xoooden  "  clipper  "  sailing  vessel,  with  which  we  had  won  supremacy;  but 
England  was  turning  to  the  iron  steamship  which  was  to  be  the  commerce  car- 
rier of  the  future.  Therefore,  the  coming  interruption  to  our  merchant  marine 
in  the  Civil  War  was  to  prove  fatal.  Our  carrying  trade  then  passed  to  Eng- 
land, and  we  have  never  recovered  it. 


POPULATION  AND  SECTIONS  579 

countries.  Actual  construction  remained  a  matter  of  the  future  ;  but  in 
1855  a  railway  was  opened  across  the  Isthmus. 

The  more  ambitious  project  of  an  American  railway  from  the  Missis- 
sippi to  the  Pacific  was  agitated  for  ten  years  before  1860,  but  without 
definite  action  except  for  surveys,  until  1862.  In  1861,  however,  en- 
couraged by  prospects  of  a  government  subsidy,  the  Western  Union 
carried  a  telegraph  line  across  the  mountains  to  San  Francisco. 

In  1858,  thanks  to  the  splendid  enterprise  of  Gyrus  W.  Field,  tele- 
graphic communication  was  established  between  Europe  and  America. 
After  a  few  weeks,  however,  a  break  in  the  submarine  cable  interrupted 
communication  until  after  the  War,  in  1866. 

365.  Credit  Expansion  and  the  Crisis  of  1857 :  Tariff  Legisla- 
tion. —  Between  1850  and  1857  the  banks  of  the  country 
doubled  in  numbers  (rising  to  more  than  1400),  while  bank 
currency  and  bank  loans  also  doubled  in  amount.  In  New 
England  and  New  York  the  lesson  of  conservative  banking 
had  been  learned ;  but  in  the  West  these  institutions  were 
still  managed  recklessly.  In  1857  came  another  of  our  periodic 
years  of  financial  distress,  due,  as  in  1837,  to  speculation,  reck- 
less inflation  of  credit,  and  premature  investment  of  borrowed 
capital  in  enterprises  which  could  render  no  immediate  return. 
This  time,  however,  the  country  recovered  quickly  from  the 
disorder. 

In  1857  the  national  debt  (augmented  during  the  Mexican 
War)  had  been  decreased  to  $29,000,000,  and  a  large  surplus 
was  piling  up  in  the  Treasury  vaults.  Many  ascribed  the 
financial  stringency  to  this  withdrawal  of  money  from  circula- 
tion; and  the  tariff,  already  low,  was  reduced  practically  to 
a  free-trade  basis  (§  321).  But  the  decrease  in  revenues 
due  to  hard  times  and  to  the  falling  off  of  imports  soon  re- 
sulted in  the  disappearance  of  the  surplus,  and  ran  the  debt 
up  to  $65,000,000.  Consequently,  in  1861  (before  the  War), 
after  a  year's  contest,  Congress  enacted  the  Morrill  Tariff,  on 
the  protective  principle. 

366.  Population  ;  Cities  ;  Resources.  —  Population  had  con- 
tinued to  increase  at  about  the  old  rate  of  100  per  cent  in 
twenty-five  years,  besides  the  added  volume  of  immigration  in 


/ 


sT 


580 


THE   UNITED   STATES  IN   1860 


the  fifties.  Between  1850  and  1860  onr  numbers  had  risen 
from  twenty-three  million  to  thirty-one  and  a  half;  and  the 
cities  (eight  thousand  people  and  upwards)  counted  now  158. 


BH     p  °j s  v^-^  s  T 


This  was  four  times  as  many  as  twenty  years  earlier ;  and  the 
cities  now  contained  one  man  in  every  six  of  the  entire  popula- 
tion, instead  of  one  in  twelve.  The  westward  movement  of 
population,  too,  continued  unabated. 


POPULATION  AND  SECTIONS 


581 


The  map  (page  386)  makes  that  movement  appear  even  greater  than  in 
earlier  decades  ;  but  the  westward  leap  of  the  "center  of  population"  be- 
tween 1850  and  1860  is  deceptive  as  an  indication  of  the  true  distribution. 


Before  1850,  the  position  of  that  point  had  been  a  roughly  correct  indica- 
tion, because,  on  the  whole,  except  for  a  temporary  gap  at  the  Appalachi- 
ans (§  112),  settlement  had  been  fairly  contiguous.  But  between  1849 
and  1860  half  a  million  people  had  crossed  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  leaving 


582  THE   UNITED  STATES   IN   1860 

more  than  half  the  continent  unsettled  behind  them,  —  so  that  in  deter- 
mining this  artificial  "center  of  gravity,"  three  men  at  San  Francisco 
had  as  much  weight  as  ten  in  New  York. 

The  cities  of  1860  were  still  large  towns  gone  to  seed  from  rapid 
growth.  They  were  unplanned,  ugly,  filthy,  poorly  policed  ;  and  the 
larger  ones  were  run  by  corrupt  "  rings  "  of  politicians,  who  maintained 
their  power  by  unblushing  fraud.  New  York  introduced  a  uniformed 
and  disciplined  "Metropolitan  police"  just  before  the  War;  and  the 
invention  of  the  steam  fire  engine,  in  1853,  promised  somewhat  better 
protection  against  the  common  devastating  fires. 

The  foreign-born  inhabitants  now  numbered  nearly  one  in  eight  of  the 
total  population.  They  were  massed  almost  wholly  in  the  North,  making 
more  than  half  the  people  of  some  States. 

The  North,  contained  nineteen  million  of  the  thirty-one  and  a 
half  million  people  of  the  Union J  (a  ratio  of  19  to  12) ;  and  of 
the  twelve  and  a  half  million  in  the  South,  four  million  were 
slaves.  Moreover,  when  the  war  line  was  finally  drawn,  four 
slave-holding  States  (Maryland,  Delaware,  Kentucky,  and 
Missouri)  remained  with  the  North.  These  States  contained  a 
fourth  of  the  "  Southern  n  population ;  and  the  recruits  which 
these  divided  districts  sent  to  the  South  were  about  offset  by 
recruits  to  the  North  from  "  West "  Virginia  and  Eastern  Ten- 
nessee. Thus,  for  totals,  secession  was  to  be  supported  by 
less  than  five  and  a  half  million  Whites  (with  three  and  a  half 
million  slaves)  against  more  than  twenty-two  millions.  Or, 
the  area  of  Secession  contained  one  White  man  of  military  age 
to  four  in  the  North. 

The  South  too  was  less  able  to  feed  and  clothe  armies.  She  fur- 
nished seven  eighths  of  the  world's  raw  cotton ;  but  she  had  not  raised 
her  own  full  supply  of  food,  and  manufactures  and  mechanical  skill  were 
almost  totally  lacking.  Minerals  and  water  power  were  abundant,  but 
unused.2  Said  a  Charleston  paper  to  its  people :  "  Whence  come  your 
axes,  hoes,  scythes?     Yes,  even  your  plows,  harrows,  rakes,  ax  and 

1  Cf.  §  246  for  the  ratio  in  1800. 

2  The  North  combined  the  resources  of  "farm,  shop,  and  factory,"  says 
Rhodes,  "the  South  was  but  a  farm,"  —  and  a  farm  which  sent  its  produce 
abroad  and  received  from  abroad  much,  even,  of  its  bread  and  meat. 


-E  OF  MILES 


NORTH  AND  SOUTH  583 

auger  handles?  Your  furniture,  carpets,  calicoes,  and  muslins?  The 
cradle  that  rocks  your  infant,  the  top  your  boy  spins,  the  doll  your  girl 
caresses,  the  clothes  your  children  wear,  the  books  from  which  they  are 
educated  ...  all  are  imported  into  South  Carolina." 

The  North  had  three  fourths  the  railway  mileage  and  six 
sevenths  of  the  cities  of  the  Union,  while  the  only  Southern 
city  of  more  than  eighty  thousand  people  (New  Orleans)  was 
dependent  upon  Northern  trade  for  prosperity.  New  York 
City,  with  800,000  people,  contained  more  Whites  than  any 
Southern  State.  Slave  labor,  —  or  rather,  perhaps,  ignorant 
Negro  labor,  —  was  unprofitable  in  any  diversified  industry. 
Agriculture  was  almost  the  sole  occupation  of  the  South. 
Even  so,  only  half  as  much  of  the  land  was  cultivated  there 
as  in  the  North ;  and  the  value  of  that  was  less  than  the  value 
of  similar  land  in  the  North,  while  the  value  of  farm  machin- 
ery to  each  cultivated  acre  was  not  half  that  in  the  North.1 
The  cultivation  of  the  great  staples,  cotton  and  tobacco,  poured 
riches  into  the  coffers  of  the  large  planters ;  but  the  mass  of 
even  the  White  farmers  remained  poor. 

The  difference  was  not  due  to  climate,  but  to  labor.  It  was  apparent 
instantly  upon  crossing  a  State  line.  In  1796  George  Washington  noted 
the  higher  prices  of  land  in  Pennsylvania  than  in  Maryland  "  though  not 
of  superior  quality"  ;  and  added  his  opinion,  on  that  ground,  that  Vir- 
ginia must  follow  Pennsylvania's  example  of  emancipation  "  at  a  period 
not  far  remote."  Tocqueville  (§  198,  note)  noted  the  contrast  b etween  the 
north  and  south  banks  of  the  Ohio :  thinly  scattered  population,  with 
occasional  gangs  of  indolent  slaves  in  the  few,  "  half-desert "  fields,  as 
over  against  "  the  busy  hum  of  industry  .  .  .  fields  rich  with  harvest  .  .  . 
comfortable  homes  .  .  .  prosperity  on  all  sides. "  In  1859  Frederick  Law 
Olmsted  made  a  journey  through  the  Southern  States  ;  and  his  acutt^ 
observations  (summed  up  in  his  judicial  Cotton  Kingdom)  proved  that  the 
industrial  retardation  of  the  South  had  been  steadily  increasing  up  to  the 
final  catastrophe. 

In  other  respects,  also,  slavery  was  revenged  upon  the 
masters.     The  poorer  Whites  were  degraded  by  it,  and  the 

1  By  the  census  of  1860  the  value  per  acre  was  42  cents  in  the  South  and 
94  in  the  North.     Slaves  could  not  be  trusted  with  valuable  machinery. 


584  THE   UNITED  STATES  IN   1860 

slave  owning  class  were  exposed  to  all  the  temptations  that 
necessarily  assail  petty  but  absolute  tyrants.  Slavery  made 
Southern  society  unduly  passionate,  imperious,  and  willful. 

The  9,000,000  Whites  of  the  slaveholding  States  composed 
some  1,800,000  families.  One  fifth  of  these  owned  slaves; 
but  only  eight  or  ten  thousand  families  owned  more  than  fifty 
apiece  (§  285  b).  This  small  aristocracy  had  a  peculiar  charm  — 
if  only  the  ugly  substructure  could  be  forgotten.  The  men 
were  leisured  and  cultivated  (educated  in  Northern  colleges  or 
abroad),  with  a  natural  gift  for  leadership  and  a  high  sense  of 
public  duty.  They  were  courageous,  honorable,  generous, 
with  easy  bearing  and  a  chivalrous  courtesy.  Visitors  from 
the  Old  World  complained  that  Northern  men  were  too 
absorbed  in  business  cares,  or  too  lacking  in  ease  of  manner, 
to  be  fit  for  society ;  but  they  were  always  charmed  by  the 
aristocratic  manners  and  cultivated  taste  of  the  gentry  of  the 
South. 

It  must  be  added,  however,  not  only  that  the  great  body  of 
small  slaveowners  were  destitute  of  this  charm,  but  that  they 
were  grossly  uneducated.  The  South  produced  little  literature 
(except  political  speeches)  and  no  art ;  and  it  had  almost  no 
schools.  On  the  other  hand,  Southern  politics  (dominated  by 
this  ruling  aristocracy)  had  absolutely  no  taint  of  that  cor- 
ruption which  had  appeared  in  the  North. 

Man  for  man,  in  marching  and  fighting,  the  Southerner  was  far  more 
than  a  match  for  the  man  of  the  North,  —  especially  for  the  man  of  the 
Eastern  cities.  Southern  outdoor  life  and  familiarity  with  firearms 
counted  for  much  in  the  early  campaigns  of  the  war.  The  North  had 
been  sadly  deficient  in  athletics  and  in  wholesome  living,  and  was  at 
its  lowest  ebb  in  physical  condition.1  The  agricultural  population  of 
the  West,  however,  resembled  the  South  in  physical  characteristics ; 
and  the  men  of  the  North,  city  or  country,  had  a  mechanical  ability, 
useful  in  repairing  or  building  bridges  or  engines,  which  was  sadly 
lacking  in  the  armies  of  the  South. 

1  Emerson  ate  "  pie  "  for  breakfast  regularly  ! 


FREE  LAND  AND  FREE   LABOR  585 

367.  Free  Labor  and  Slavery  and  the  Public  Lands.  —  Happily, 
the  political  warfare  on  slavery  had  been  intimately  interwoven 
with  a  struggle  for  some  of  the  privileges  for  which  free  labor 
cared  most  earnestly.  The  Free  Soilers  aimed  not  only  to 
keep  the  soil  of  the  public  domain  free  from  slavery,  but  also 
to  keep  it  "free"  for  free  labor.  In  1852  their  platform 
declared  in  accordance  with  the  Labor  parties  of  twenty  years 
before :  — 

"  The  public  land  of  the  United  States  belongs  to  the  people,  and  should 
not  be  sold  to  individuals  or  granted  to  corporations,  but  should  be  held 
as  a  sacred  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  should  be  granted  in 
limited  quantities,  free  of  cost,  to  landless  settlers." 

Other  elements  rallied  to  the  movement.  In  1845  Andrew 
Johnson  (who  had  been  connected  with  the  early  labor  move- 
ment in  Tennessee,  §  290)  introduced  in  Congress  the  first 
"Homestead  Bill,"  —  to  give  every  homeless  citizen  a  farm 
from  the  public  lands.  Several  times  such  bills  passed  the 
House ;  but  the  Slave  Power  now  definitely  set  itself  against 
this  policy  and  defeated  all  such  measures  in  the  Senate.  It 
saw  truly  that  the  increase  of  free  immigration  into  the  public 
domain  would  quickly  end  all  chance  to  establish  slavery 
there.  But  this  new  attitude  of  the  South  helped  to  make  the 
masses  of  the  North  see  more  clearly  the  fundamental  opposition 
of  interest  between  the  two  systems  of  labor,  and  to  array  Northern 
workingmen  more  solidly  against  slavery} 

In  June  of  1860  the  House  passed  a  Homestead  Bill  giving  any  head 
of  a  family  a  quarter  section  after  five  years'  residence  thereon.  The 
Kepublican  platform  of  the  same  year  "demanded"  the  passing  by  the 
Senate  of  that  "complete  and  satisfactory  measure,"  protesting  also 
"  against  any  view  of  the  free  homestead  policy  which  regards  the  settlers 
as  paupers  or  suppliants  for  public  bounty."     The  Senate  did  pass  the 

1  While  urging  one  of  these  Homestead  Bills,  Ben  Wade  of  Ohio  was 
taunted  by  Southern  congressmen  (who  wished  right  of  way  for  consideration 
of  a  scheme  to  purchase  Cuba)  with  trying  merely  to  "give  lands  to  the  land- 
less." Wade  retorted  with  a  phrase,  famous  in  that  day,  that  his  adversaries 
sought  only  to  "  give  Niggers  to  the  Niggerless." 


586  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  1860 


Bill,  after  adding  a  twenty-five-cent-per-acre  fee  ;  but,  even  in  this 
modified  form,  Buchanan  vetoed  it : —  (1)  as  "unjust"  to  earlier  settlers 
who  had  paid  for  their  land  ;  (2)  as  worthless  to  help  artisans  ; 1  (3)  as 
likely  to  depopulate  older  States  ;  and  (4)  especially  as  tending  to 
dangerous  "agrarian"  sentiments.2  When  the  Slave  Power  had  with- 
drawn from  Congress,  a  Homestead  Bill  became  law  (May,  1862),  on  the 
same  plan,  but  without  the  money  fee. 

Exercise. — a.  Topical  reviews:  (1)  territorial  expansion;  (2)  popu- 
lation, immigration,  distribution,  etc.  ;  (3)  attempts  to  restrict  slavery  in 
the  Territories ;   (4)  tariff  legislation,  to  the  War. 

b.  Prepare  a  table  of  admission  of  States  for  reference. 

c.  Prepare  lists  of  terms  relating  to  each  decade  down  to  1860  for  brief 
explanation. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  standard  anthority  after  1850  is  Rhodes' 
History  of  the  United  States.  In  the  "American  Nation"  series  the 
ground  is  covered  by  Hart's  Slavery  and  Abolition  and  Smith's  Parties 
and  Slavery.  The  best  brief  account  is  perhaps  Woodrow  Wilson's 
Division  and  Reunion.  Among  the  valuable  special  treatises  are  :  Mary 
S.  Locke's  Antislavery  in  America;  Marion  G.  McDougal's  Fugitive 
Slaves;  Siebert's  Underground  Railroad ;  Dubois'  African  Slave  Trade. 
Among  the  many  valuable  biographies  are  Hart's  Chase;  Riddle's  Wade; 
Julian's  Giddings ;  Birney's  Birney ;  Morse's  Lincoln;  Storey's  Charles 
Sumner;  Johnson's  Garrison  and  His  Times;  Frothingham's  Gerrit 
Smith;  Chadwick's  Theodore  Parker;  Schurz's  Clay ;  Meigs'  Benton; 
Davis'  Jefferson  Davis;  and  the  admirable  sketches  in  Trent's  Southern 
Statesmen. 


1  Buchanan  failed  to  see  the  plain  logic  of  the  early  Workingman's  Party 
on  this  point  (§  315). 

2  "The  honest  poor  man,"  argued  the  President,  "by  frugality  and  in- 
dustry, can  in  any  part  of  our  country  acquire  a  competence.  ...  He  desires 
no  charity.  .  .  .  This  bill  .  .  .  will  go  far  to  demoralize  the  people,  and 
repress  this  noble  spirit  of  independence.  It  may  introduce  among  us  those 
pernicious  social  theories  which  have  proved  so  disastrous  in  other  countries." 
Such  gracious  and  perfectly  honest  arguments  by  former  conservatives 
against  reforms  which  have  become  part  of  the  warp  of  our  daily  life  are 
valuable  reading  for  the  student.  They  suggest  forcibly  a  doubt  to  the  most 
obtuse  whether  such  imposing  authorities  may  not  be  wrong  to-day,  even 
when  their  rhetoric  against  progress  is  equally  admirable. 


T> 


Six,    ■  t  1^c 

CHAPTER   XV 

NATIONALISM    VICTORIOUS    (1860-1876) 

I.     THE    CIVIL   WAR 

368.  Secession.  —  TJie  legislature  of  South  Carolina  had  as- 
sembled to  choose  electors  (§  295),  and  it  remained  in  session 
to  await  the  result  in  the  nation  at  large.  November  7,  the 
day  after  the  popular  vote,  it  was  clear  that  the  "Black  Re- 
publicans" had  won  the  electoral  college.  Promptly,  ac- 
cording to  a  program  already  fixed,  the  legislature  appro- 
priated money  for  arms,  and  called  a  State  convention  to  act 
on  the  question  of  secession. 

All  over  the  State,  Palmetto  banners  unfurled  and  "  liberty 
poles"  rose;  and  to  these  wild  rejoicings  a  stern  and  solemn 
note  was  added  by  Puritan  prayer  and  preaching,  characteristic 
of  a  deeply  religious  people.  December  17,  the  convention  met. 
Three  days  later,  it  unanimously  "  repealed  "  the  ratification  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  by  the  South  Carolina  convention  of 
1788,  and  declared  that  "  the  Union  hitherto  existing  between 
this  State  and  the  other  States  of  North  America  is  dissolved, 
and  that  the  State  of  South  Carolina  has  resumed  her  place 
among  the  nations  of  the  world."  By  February  1,  like  action 
had  been  taken  in  Georgia  and  the  five  Gulf  States  —  the  entire 
southern  tier  of  States. 

The  population  of  this  "Lower  South"  (§  272  c)  was  politically 
active,  devoted  to  discussion  and  public  meetings  —  which  sometimes 
lasted  a  week  at  a  time,  with  huge  barbecues.  But,  except  in  Texas, 
where  the  convention  had  been  called  irregularly,  no  one  seriously  advo- 
cated a  popular  vote  on  secession.  In  the  language  of  the  South,  the 
States  seceded  in  the  same  manner  in  which  they  had  acceded  to  the 
Union.  Just  as  in  1788,  the  State  conventions  (elected  on  an  express 
issue)  were  sovereign  and  their  action  final. 

587 


588  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

Northern  writers  have  sometimes  charged  that  the  Southern  leaders 
carried  secession  as  a  "  conspiracy,"  and  that  they  were  afraid  to  refer 
the  matter  to  a  direct  vote.  This  is  absolutely  wrong.  Public  opinion 
forced  Jefferson  Davis  onward  faster  than  he  liked ;  and  the  mass  of 
small  farmers  were  more  ardent  than  the  aristocracy  —  whose  large  prop- 
erty interests  tended,  perhaps,  to  keep  them  conservative.  For  more 
than  a  year,  in  the  less  aristocratic  counties,  popular  conventions,  local 
meetings,  and  newspapers  had  been  threatening  secession  if  a  President 
unfriendly  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision  should  be  elected.  Practically,  the 
Southern  people  had  just  had  a  referendum  on  the  subject.  The  large 
Southern  majority  for  Breckenridge  had  been  really  a  vote  for  secession 
(or  at  least  a  threat  of  it)  in  case  of  a  Republican  victory  in  the  North  ; 
while  the  small  Bell  and  Douglas  votes  were  a  feeble  protest  against  this 
avowed  program.  In  November  South  Carolina  papers  began  to  charge 
that  the  North  had  "  bought  up  "  the  hesitating  Southern  leaders  ;  and 
when  even  the  "Fire-eater"  Toombs  paused  for  a  moment,  to  contem- 
plate compromise,  his  constituents  talked  indignantly  of  presenting  him 
with  a  tin  sword.  The  South  was  vastly  more  united  in  1861  than  the  colo- 
nies were  in  1776.  The  leaders  acted  through  conventions,  not  because 
they  feared  a  popular  vote,  but  because  their  political  methods  had  re- 
mained unchanged  for  seventy  years. 

In  a  recent  scholarly  study  ("  Southern  Non-Slaveholders  in  the  Elec- 
tion of  1860,"  in  Political  Science  Quarterly,  XXVI),  Dr.  David  Y. 
Thomas  demonstrates  that  the  aristocracy  was  divided  as  to  secession. 
Much  of  the  Bell  ("Union")  vote,  he  shows,  came  from  counties  where 
the  aristocracy  was  strongest,  while  the  Breckenridge  vote  came  largely 
from  counties .  made  up  mostly  of  small  farmers  and  non-slaveholders. 
For  partial  explanation,  Professor  Thomas  points  to  a  parallel  between 
this  phenomenon  and  the  ardent  support  for  many  decades  to  the  "  spe- 
cial privileges  "  of  Big  Business  by  the  masses  of  the  North.  Dr.  Rhodes, 
the  standard  authority,  makes  clear  the  spontaneity  of  the  secession 
movement  (History,  III,  273-276,  and,  especially  for  South  Carolina, 
120-123).  Cf.  also  Morse's  Lincoln,  225-276.  Woodrow  Wilson  pic- 
tures the  people  as  following  its  leaders,  but  says  forcefully  :  »  "  But  the 
voting  population  of  the  Southern  States  was  in  a  sense  the  most  political 
in  the  world,  — the  least  likely  to  follow  blindly,  because  the  most  inter- 
ested in  politics,  sensitive  to  nothing  more  keenly  than  to  new  aspects  of 
public  affairs.  It  could  be  managed  by  its  leaders  only  because  it  was  so 
thoroughly  homogeneous,  only  because  it  so  thoroughly  sympathized  with 
their  point  of  view."  — Division  and  Beunion,  241. 


t  SECESSION  589 

Few  Southerners  questioned  the  right  of  a  Sovereign  State  to  secede 
if  it  so  decided.  Almost  the  sole  difference  of  opinion  was  whether  suf- 
ficient provocation  existed  to  make  such  action  wise;1  and  when  a  State 
convention  had  chosen,  even  the  previous  "Union  men"  went  with 
their  State,  conscientiously  and  enthusiastically.  Thus,  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  high-minded  gentleman  and  a  marvel  of  ability,  made  a 
desperate  struggle  in  Georgia  for  the  Union,  both  in  the  State  campaign 
and  in  the  convention ;  but  when  the  convention  decided  against  him, 
208  to  6g,2  he  cast  himself  devotedly  into  secession.  To  Southern 
thought  any  other  course  would  have  been  treason.  Allegiance,  the  South 
felt,  was  due  primarily  to  one's  State  ;  and  secession  was  a  constitutional 
right,  to  be  exercised  by  a  State  at  its  discretion.  It  had  nothing  to  do 
with  "  treason  "  or  " rebellion  "  or  even  with  "  revolution." 

To  understand  the  splendid  devotion  of  the  South  to  a  hopeless  cause 
during  the  bloody  years  that  followed,  we  must  appreciate  this  view- 
point, —  from  which,  happily,  the  progressive  North  had  grown  away  in 
its  movement  toward  a  true  Union.  The  South  fought  "  to  keep  the  past 
upon  its  throne  ";  but  it  believed,  with  every  drop  of  its  blood,  that  it  was  fight- 
ing for  the  sacred  right  of  self-government,  against "  conquest "  by  tyrannical 
"  invaders. " 

369.  The  Confederacy.  — February  4,  on  the  invitation  of  the 
Alabama  convention,  delegates  from  the  seven  seceding  States 
met  at  Montgomery  and  soon  drew  up  a  provisional  constitution 

1  The  vast  majority  felt  intensely  that  there  was  also  good  reason  for  seces- 
sion. The  South  Carolina  convention  asserted  that  fourteen  Northern  States 
had  violated  the  Constitution  deliberately  by  "  personal  liberty  laws  "  (§  348), 
and  that  the  remaining  States  were  therefore  released  from  obligation  to  that 
"  compact"  ;  and  Jefferson  Davis,  in  his  farewell  to  the  Senate,  turning  to 
the  Northern  Senators,  exclaimed:  "You  refuse  us  that  equality  without 
which  we  should  be  degraded.  .  .  .  You  elect  a  candidate  upon  the  basis  of 
sectional  hostility  —  one  who  has  made  a  distinct  declaration  of  war  upon  our 
institutions."  Rhodes  (III,  271  ff.)  gives  long  extracts  from  that  pathetic  and 
impressive  speech,  and  portrays  Davis'  night  of  prayer  that  followed. 
Harding's  Select  Orations  gives  the  speech  in  full. 

2  The  real  test  vote  had  come  a  little  earlier  —165  to  130.  This  was  the 
strongest  Union  vote  in  the  Lower  South.  In  Mississippi,  the  test  stood  84  to 
15;  in  Florida,  62  to  7;  in  Alabama,  61  to  39;  in  Louisiana,  113  to  17.  In 
Texas,  in  spite  of  a  vigorous  Union  campaign  by  Governor  Sam  Houston, 
the  people  voted  three  to  one  for  secession. 


590  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

for  a  new  union,  "  The  Confederate  States  of  America."  Jeffer- 
son Davis  was  chosen  President,  provisionally,  and  Alexander 
H.  Stephens,  Vice  President.  In  March  a  permanent  constitu- 
tion was  adopted,  and  afterward  ratified  by  State  conventions ; 
and  the  first  electoral  college  confirmed  the  choice  of  Davis 
and  Stephens. 

The  constitution  was  avowedly  modeled  upon  that  of  the  old  Union,  — 
with  which,  as  they  interpreted  it,  the  seceding  States  were  well  satisfied. 
The  changes  were  of  two  sorts  :  —  ■ 

a.  In  a  few  cases  the  Southern  view  of  disputed  points  in  the  old  Con- 
stitution was  more  clearly  affirmed.  Each  State  was  declared  to  ratify 
the  union  "in  its  sovereign  character."  Protective  tariffs  and  internal 
improvements  were  expressly  prohibited.  The  word  slave  was  used 
frankly  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  affirmed. 

b.  A  few  attempts  were  made  to  improve  details.  The  President  was 
to  hold  for  six  years,  and  to  be  ineligible  for  reelection.  He  was  given 
the  right  to  veto  separate  items  of  appropriation  bills  (cf .  §  303) .  Con- 
gress could  make  no  appropriations  not  recommended  by  the  executive, 
except  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  Heads  of  executive  departments  were  to 
have  seats  in  the  Congress,  and  the  right  of  debate,  but  not  of  vote. 
These  experiments,  all  worth  trying,  had  no  real  try-out  in  the  years  of 
war  that  followed. 

One  other  provision  is  of  interest.  The  constitution  prohibited  the 
foreign  slave  trade.  This  was  a  sop  to  English  opinion,  which  the  Con- 
federacy was  very  desirous  to  keep  friendly,  and  at  the  same  time  it  was 
an  inducement  to  the  remaining  Slave  States  to  join  the  Confederacy, 

—  since,  otherwise,  they  would  lose  their  profitable  business  of  selling 
surplus  Negroes  in  more  southern  markets. 

370.  Indecision  at  the  North.  —  The  South  did  not  believe 
the  North  would  use  force  against  secession.  Still  it  made 
vigorous  preparation  for  possible  war.  As  each  State  seceded, 
its  citizens  in  Congress  and  in  the  civil  and  military  service  of 
the  United  States  resigned  their  offices.  The  small  army  and 
navy  of  the  Union  was  in  this  way  completely  demoralized,  — 
losing  nearly  half  its  officers.  Each  seceding  State,  too,  seized 
promptly  upon  the  Federal  forts  and  arsenals  within  its  limits, 

—  sending  commissioners  to  Washington  to  arrange  for  money 
compensation  to  the  Federal  government  and  for  a  proper  di- 


INDECISION  AT  THE  NORTH  591 

vision  of  the  national  debt.  In  the  seven  seceded  States,  the 
Governriient  retained  only  Fort  Sumter  in  Charleston  harbor, 
Fort  Pickens  at  Pensacola,  and  two  small  forts  on  detached 
islands  near  Key  West.  Federal  courts  ceased  to  be  held  in 
the  seceded  States,  because  of  the  resignation  of  judges  and 
other  officials  and  the  absolute  impossibility  of  securing  jurors. 
Federal  tariffs  were  no  longer  collected.  Only  the  post  office 
remained  as  a*  symbol  of  the  old  Union. 

President  Buchanan  had  been  strongly  under  the  influence 
of  Southern  advisers.  The  withdrawal  of  those  men  from 
Congress  and  Cabinet  left  him  sadly  at  sea.  His  message  to 
Congress,  in  December,  declared  that  the  Constitution  gave  no 
State  the  right  to  secede,  but  —  a  curious  paradox — that  it  gave 
the  government  no  right  "  to  coerce  a  sovereign  state  "  even  if 
it  did  secede.  Accordingly,  for  the  remaining  critical  months 
of  his  term  (cf.  §  212,  final  note)  he  let  secession  gather  head 
as  it  liked.1  This  flabby  policy,  moreover,  was  much  like  the 
attitude  of  the  masses  of  the  North  during  those  same  months,  — 
dismayed  or  incredulous  regarding  the  storm,  and  waiting 
supinely  for  it  possibly  to  blow  over. 

For  months,  even  from  Republican  leaders,  resounded  the  cry,  "  Let 
the  erring  sisters  go  in  peace."  In  October,  General  Scott,  Commander 
of  the  army,  suggested  to  the  President  a  division  of  the  country  into  four 
confederacies, — for  which  he  outlined  boundaries.  Northern  papers 
declared  "coercion"  both  wrong  and  impossible.  Horace  Greeley's 
New  York  Tribune,  for  years  the  greatest  antislavery  organ  and  the 
chief  molder  of  Republican  opinion,  expressed  these  views  repeatedly. 
"  If  the  Cotton  States  shall  decide  they  can  do  better  out  of  the  Union 
than  in  it,  we  insist  upon  letting  them  go  in  peace.  .  .  .  We  hope  never 
to  live  in  a  republic,  whereof  one  section  is  pinned  to  another  by  bayo- 
nets" (November  9);  "Five  millions  of  people  ...  of  whom  half  a 
million  are  able  and  willing  to  shoulder  muskets,  can  never  be  subdued 
while  fighting  around  their  own  hearthstones"    (November  30)  ;    "The 


1  With  homely  wit,  Seward  wrote  to  his  wife  that  the  Message  shows  "con- 
clusively that  it  is  the  President's  duty  to  execute  the  laws  —  unless  some  one 
opposes  him  ;  and  that  no  State  has  a  right  to  go  out  of  the  Union  —  unless 
it  wants  to." 


592  THE   CIVIL  WAR 

South  has  as  good  a  right  to  secede  from  the  Union  as  the  colonies  had 
to  secede  from  Great  Britain"  (December  17)  ;  "If  the  Cotton  States 
wish  to  form  an  independent  nation,  they  have  a  clear  moral  right  to 
do  so"  (February  23,  1861).  For  the  moment,  Lowell  thought  the 
seceding  States  would  be  "  not  worth  conquering  back,  even  if  it  could  be 
done."  And,  April  9,  Wendell  Phillips  asserted,  "Abraham  Lincoln 
has  no  right  to  a  soldier  in  Fort  Sumter." 

Another  portion  of  the  North,  and  especially  of  the  Border  States, 
urged  one  more  try  at  compromise.  A  Peace  Convention  was  called  by 
Virginia.  The  delegates,  from  twenty-one  States,  sat  at  Washington 
throughout  February,  and  proposed  several  amendments  to  the  Consti- 
tution, to  fortify  slavery.  Committees  of  Congress  made  like  suggestions. 
Other  proposals  of  similar  nature  rained  from  the  Republican  press. 

In  general  these  proposals  comprised:  (1)  division  of  the  National 
Domain,  present  and  future,  between  slavery  and  freedom,  along  the 
line  of  the  old  Missouri  Compromise  ;  (2)  repeal  of  Northern  "personal 
liberty  laws"  (which  several  States  were  already  repealing,  to  soothe 
Southern  feeling)  ;  and  (3)  Federal  compensation  for  escaped  slaves. 

Even  Seward  seemed  disposed  to  yield  much  ;  and  if  the  Southern 
members  had  remained  in  Congress  and  voted  for  such  amendments,  they 
might  have  been  carried,  and  the  country,  apparently,  would  have  ratified 
them,  in  its  panic.  But  the  Southerners  would  not  accept  such  offers 
unless  they  were  voted  for  by  practically  the  whole  body  of  Republican 
congressmen  —  so  as  to  insure  finality.  Against  this  surrender,  Lincoln 
cast  his  influence,  advising  his  friends  in  Congress  to  yield  nothing  of  the 
Republican  position  on  the  Territories,  though  he  was  quite  willing  to 
conciliate  the  South  as  to  fugitive  slaves.  "The  tug  has  come,"  he 
wrote  ;  "  and  now  better  than  later"  ;  and  he  pointed  out  that  to  sur- 
render on  the  principle  of  Territories  would  merely  invite  fresh  South- 
ern demands  for  the  acquisition  of  Cuba. 

Accordingly,  the  only  outcome  of  the  compromise  agitation  was  the 
submission  to  the  country  of  an  amendment  prohibiting  Congress  from 
ever  interfering  with  slavery  in  the  States.  This  passed  Congress  with 
a  solid  Republican  vote,  and  was  ratified  by  three  Northern  States,  before 
war  stopped  the  process.  It  merely  made  express  what  was  already  im- 
plied clearly  in  the  Constitution,  as  Lincoln  said ;  and  it  was  wholly 
inadequate  to  satisfy  the  South.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  North,  the 
seemingly  apathetic  masses  needed  only  a  blow  or  a  leader  to  rally  them 
for  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  South  Carolina's  firing  on  the  flag  at 
Sumter  gave  the  blow ;  and  Abraham  Lincoln's  call  for  troops  showed 
the  leader  (§  372) .  Talk  of  compromise  and  of  peaceful  secession  ceased 
on  the  moment,  or  was  drowned  in  the  din  of  arms. 


ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  593 

371.  Abraham  Lincoln  succeeded  to  the  presidency  on  the 
fourth  of  March,  and  straightway  stood  forth  as  one  of  the 
supremely  grand  figures  in  all  history.  The  inaugural  address 
was  an  answer  to  Southern  claims  and  a  winning  but  firm 
declaration  of  policy. 

[As  to  the  reason  for  secession]:  "  Apprehension  seems  to  exist  among 
the  people  of  the  Southern  States  that  .  .  .  their  property  and  their  peace 
and  personal  security  are  to  be  endangered.  There  has  never  been  any 
reasonable  cause  for  such  apprehension.  ...  7  have  no  purpose,  directly 
or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where 
it  exists.  I  believe  I  have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so ;  and  I  have  no  inclina- 
tion to  do  so." 

[Turning  to  the  theory  of  the  constitutional  "  right  "  of  secession]  : 
"I  hold  that  in  contemplation  of  universal  law  and  of  the  Constitution, 
the  union  of  these  States  is  perpetual.  .  .  .  [But  if  the  United  States  be  not 
a  government,  but  only  a  '  compact,'  even  then  mutual  consent  would  be 
required  to  rescind  the  compact.]  It  follows  .  .  .  that  no  State,  upon 
its  own  mere  motion,  can  lawfully  get  out  of  the  Union.  ...  I  therefore 
consider  that,  in  view  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  un- 
broken ;  and  [now  as  to  policy]  to  the  extent  of  my  ability,  I  shall  take 
care,  as  the  Constitution  itself  expressly  enjoins  upon  me,  that  the  laws 
of  the  Union  shall  be  faithfully  executed  in  all  the  States.  ...  In  doing 
this  there  need  be  no  bloodshed  .  .  .  unless  it  is  forced  upon  the  National 
authority.  .  .  . 

"  The  power  confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold,  occupy,  and  possess  the 
property  and  places  belonging  to  the  government,  and  collect  the  duties 
and  imposts  ;  but  beyond  what  may  be  necessary  for  these  objects  there 
will  be  no  invasion,  no  using  of  force  against  the  people  anywhere." 

[Then,  recognizing  the  right  of  revolution,  the  deplorable  loss  from  any 
division  of  the  Union  is  set  forth]  :  "Physically  speaking,  we  cannot 
separate  :  we  cannot  remove  our  respective  sections  from  each  other,  nor 
build  an  impassable  wall  between  them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be 
divorced,  and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  beyond  the  reach  of  each  other, 
but  the  different  parts  of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  .  .  .  Intercourse, 
either  amicable  or  hostile,  must  continue  between  them.  7s  it  possible, 
then,  to  make  that  intercourse  more  advantageous  or  more  satisfactory 
after  separation  than  before  f  Can  aliens  make  treaties  easier  than  friends 
can  make  laws  ? 

"  In  your  hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow-countrymen,  and  not  in  mine, 
is  the  momentous  issue  of  civil  war.     The  government  will  not  assail  you. 

"You  can  have  no  conflict  without  being  yourselves  the  aggressors. 


594  THE   CIVIL  WAR 

You  have  no  oath  registered  in  heaven  to  destroy  the  government,  while 
I  shall  have  the  most  solemn  one  to  '  preserve,  protect,  and  defend '  it. 

"  I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies,  but  friends.  We  must  not 
be  enemies.  Though  passion  may  have  strained,  it  must  not  break,  our 
bonds  of  affection. 

"  The  mystic  cords  of  memory,  stretching  from  every  battlefield  and 
patriot  grave  to  every  living  heart  and  hearthstone  all  over  this  broad 
land,  will  yet  swell  the  chorus  of  the  Union,  when  again  touched,  as 
surely  they  will  be,  by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature." 

Seward,  who  had  been  made  Secretary  of  State,  expected 
to  be  the  real  head  of  the  government.  He  came  forward  with 
wild  and  immoral  proposals  for  war  with  England  and  France  — 
to  unite  North  and  South  against  the  foreigner  —  and  with 
generous  offers  to  take  the  management  of  such  affairs  into  his 
own  more  experienced  hands.  Lincoln  set  him  in  his  true 
place  so  firmly  that  he  never  doubted  again  who  was  President, 
but  so  tactfully  that  he  could  still,  with  self-respect,  retain  his 
office.  Other  leaders  showered  the  new  President  with  advice. 
Lincoln  heard  all  patiently ;  but  his  real  efforts  were  given  to 
keeping  in  touch,  not  with  "leaders,"  but  with  the  plain 
people  whom  he  so  well  understood.  His  own  eyes  were  set 
unwavering  upon  his  goal  —  the  preservation  of  the  Union  — 
while  with  unrivaled  skill,  he  kept  his  finger  on  the  Nation's 
pulse,  to  know  how  fast  he  might  move  toward  that  end.  For 
a  time  he  was  railed  at  by  noisy  extremists,  who  would  have 
had  him  faster  or  slower;  but  the  silent  masses  responded  to 
his  sympathy  and  answered  his  appeal  with  love  and  perfect 
trust,  and  enabled  him  to  carry  through  successfully  the 
greatest  task  so  far  set  for  any  American  statesman. 

The  country  now  paid  heavily,  through  the  wear  upon  its  burdened 
chieftain,  for  its  low  tone  toward  the  public  service  and  the  spoils  system. 
With  the  change  of  parties,  Washington  was  thronged,  beyond  all  prece- 
dent, with  office  seekers,  who  were  "  Republicans  for  revenue  "  ;  and  the 
first  precious  weeks  of  the  new  administration  had  to  go  largely  to  settling 
petty  personal  disputes  over  plunder.  According  to  one  of  his  private 
secretaries,  Lincoln  compared  himself  to  a  man  busied  in  assigning  rooms 
in  a  palace  to  importunate  applicants,  while  the  structure  itself  was 
burning  over  his  head  ;  and  in  1862,  when  an  Illinois  visitor  remarked  on 


% 


THE  CALL  TO  ARMS  595 

his  careworn  face,  he  exclaimed  with  petulant  humor,  "  It  isn't  this 
war  that's  killing  me,  Judge:  it's  your  confounded  Pepperton  post  office." 
Says  Geo.  W.  Julian  {Political  Becollections,  193-194) :  "  A  Republican 
member  of  Congress  could  form  some  idea  of  the  President's  troubles  from 
his  own.  I  fled  from  my  home  in  the  latter  part  of  February  [1861]  in  the 
hope  of  finding  relief  from  importunities ;  but  on  reaching  Washington,  I 
found  the  business  greatly  aggravated  ...  so  that  I  could  scarcely  find 
time  for  my  meals.  ...  I  met  at  every  turn  a  swarm  of  miscellaneous 
people,  many  of  them  looking  as  hungry  as  wolves,  ready  to  pounce  upon 
members  as  they  passed.  .  .  .  After  Fort  Sumter  had  been  taken  .  .  . 
and  the  whole  land  was  in  a  blaze,  this  scuffle  for  place  was  unabated, 
and  the  pressure  upon  the  strength  of  the  President  unrelieved." 

372.  The  Call  to  Arms.  — In  November,  1860,  Major  Ander- 
son commanded  a  force  of  sixty  soldiers  in  dilapidated  Fort 
Moultrie  in  Charleston  harbor.  Later,  he  removed  to  the  more 
defensible  Fort  Sumter,  in  the  same  harbor,  and  pleaded  in 
vain  to  Buchanan  for  reinforcements,  while  commissioners 
from  South  Carolina  were  trying  to  cajole  that  gentleman 
into  surrendering  the  forts.  In  January,  a  threatened  resigna- 
tion of  his  Cabinet  (Northern  Democrats  now,  who  meant  at 
least  to  defend  the  National  property)  shamed  Buchanan  into 
a  feeble  show  of  sending  reinforcements.  The  unarmed  vessel, 
weakly  chosen  for  the  purpose,  was  easily  turned  back  by 
Secessionist  shells  ;  and  further  efforts  were  made  difficult  by 
rising  batteries  —  whose  construction  Anderson's  orders  did 
not  permit  him  to  prevent  and  which  were  soon  strong  enough 
to  demolish  the  Federal  fort. 

Five  weeks  after  assuming  office,  President  Lincoln  gave 
notice  that  he  was  about  to  send  supplies  to  Anderson.  The 
Confederate  government  took  this  notice  as  a  declaration  of  war, 
and  attacked  the  fort.  April  12,  the  bombardment  began  ;  and 
thirty  hours  later,  with  the  fortress  in  ruins,  Major  Ander- 
son surrendered.  The  next  day  (April  15)  the  wires  flashed 
over  the  country  Abraham  Lincoln's  stirring  call  for  seventy- 
five  thousand  volunteers. 

Then  came  a  magnificent  uprising  of  the  North.  Laborers, 
mechanics,  business  men,  professional  men,  college  boys  and 


596  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

their  learned  teachers  shouldered  muskets  side  by  side.  From 
Maine  to  California,  devotion  and  love  for  the  Union  spoke 
with  one  mighty  voice.  Banks  offered  huge  loans  without 
security,  and  wealthy  men  placed  their  private  fortunes  at  the 
disposal  of  the  government.  By  July,  310,000  men  were  in 
the  field.  Before  the  close  of  1861,  the  number  was  660,000, 
enlisted  for  "  three  years  or  the  war." 

Party  distinctions  in  the  North  faded.  Douglas  hastened  to  offer  sup- 
port to  Lincoln,  and  redeemed  the  pledge  gallantly  during  the  remaining 
weeks  of  his  failing  life  ;  and  Buchanan,  unable  though  he  had  been  to 
act  for  himself,  gave  cordial  aid  now  to  the  government.  Lowell  wrote 
(Atlantic  Monthly ,  June,  1861)  of  "  that  first  gun  at  Sumter  which  brought 
the  free  States  to  their  feet  as  one  man  "  ;  and  four  years  later  he  told 
again  how  "America  lay  asleep,  like  the  princess  of  the  fairy  tale,  en- 
chanted by  prosperity.  But  at  the  fiery  kiss  of  war  the  spell  is  broken, 
the  blood  tingles  along  her  veins,  and  she  awakens,  conscious  of  her 
beauty  and  sovereignty. ' ' 

373.  The  Remaining  Slave  States  Choose.  —  The  Confederacy 
sprang  to  arms  with  even  greater  unanimity.  And  now  the 
remaining  Slave  States  had  to  choose  sides.  Within  six  weeks 
the  second  tier  (North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  Tennessee,  Arkan- 
sas) had  joined  the  Confederacy  rather  than  join  in  attempts 
"  to  coerce  sister  States  " ; l  and  the  Confederate  capital  had 

1  The  North  Carolina  and  Arkansas  legislatures  called  conventions,  which, 
it  was  expressly  declared,  should  take  final  action.  The  Carolina  convention 
voted  for  secession  unanimously,  and  that  of  Arkansas  with  only  one  delegate 
in  the  negative.  The  legislature  of  Tennessee  submitted  the  matter  directly 
to  the  people;  and  the  popular  vote  stood  105,000  to  47,000  (the  eastern  moun- 
tain counties,  like  their  Virginia  neighbors,  containing  a  strong  Union  element) . 
In  Virginia  the  convention  vote  was  two  to  one  for  secession.  There  also  the 
question  was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote;  and  the  people,  regarding  the  issue 
as  already  decided,  sustained  the  convention  by  a  vote  of  three  to  one  in  a 
total  of  nearly  130,000  —  the  opposition  coming  almost  wholly  from  the  western 
counties,  which  were  about  to  secede  from  the  State.  (See  below.)  Says 
Eggleston's  A  Rebel's  Recollections :  "  The  unanimity  .  .  .  was  marvelous. 
So  long  as  the  question  of  secession  was  under  discussion,  opinions  were  both 
various  and  violent.  The  moment  secession  was  determined  upon,  a  revolu- 
tion was  wrought.  There  was  no  longer  anything  to  discuss.  .  .  .  Men  got 
ready  for  war,  and  delicate  women  sent  them  off  with  smiling  faces."    And  a 


597 


THE  BORDER  STATES  CHOOSE 

been  moved  from  Montgomery  to  Richmond,  within  striking 
distance  of  Washington.  The  third  tier  of  Slave  States  (Mary- 
land and  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Missouri)  were  the  true  "  Border 
States."  Delaware  alone  stood  firmly  for  the  Union  from  the 
first ;  but,  spite  of  strong  secession  sentiment,  the  others  were 
finally  kept  in  the  Union x  by  Lincoln's  wise  diplomacy  and  by 


Union  Slates 
V//A  First  Group  of  Seceding  Stales 
k'c-VI  Second   » 


Union  and  Confederacy,  1862. 

swift  action  of  Union  armies,  —  though  their  inhabitants  sent 
many  regiments  to  swell  the  Southern  ranks.  The  lines  were 
drawn,  twenty-two  States  against  eleven  (§  368). 

The  people  of  the  western  counties  in  Virginia  had  been  op- 
Virginian  who  had  heen  one  of  the  Unionist  delegates  in  the  convention, 
when  asked  just  afterward  by  a  Northerner,  "What  will  the  Union  men  of 
Virginia  do?"  replied:  "There  are  no  Union  men  left  in  Virginia.  We 
stand  this  day  a  united  people.  .  .  .  We  will  give  you  a  fight  which  will 
stand  out  on  the  page  of  history." 

1  Missouri  might  have  joined  the  Confederacy  except  for  vigorous  action 
by  the  many  thousands  of  recent  German  immigrants  in  St.  Louis,  who  stood 
stoutly  for  the  Union.  The  governor  had  refused  to  obey  Lincoln's  call  for 
troops  (as  did  also  the  governors  of  Maryland  and  Kentucky) ,  stigmatizing  it 
as  "illegal,  unconstitutional,  and  revolutionary  in  its  object,  and  inhuman 
and  diabolical." 


598  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

posed  to  secession.  When  the  State  withdrew,  they  organized 
a  separate  State  government,  and  (1863)  were  admitted  to  the 
Union  as  the  State  of  West  Virginia} 

374.  A  Bird's-eye  View  of  the  Plan  of  Campaign.  —  The  splen- 
did outburst  of  National  spirit  in  the  North  was  inspired. in 
part  by  a  mistaken  impression  that  it  could  end  the  conflict 
with  one  decisive  blow.2  From  this  idle  dream  the  country 
awoke  when  the  Union  forces  were  utterly  routed  at  Bull  Run 
(July  21).  Then,  in  more  wholesome  temper,  it  settled  down 
fcp  a  stern  war  —  which  lasted  four  years  and  was  one  of  the 
most  tremendous  struggles  in  history. 

To  subdue  the  South,  two  things  were  essential.  (1)  A 
cordon  must  be  drawn  about  the  seceding  States,  so  that  they 
could  receive  no  supplies  from  the  outside  world;  and  (2) 
they  must  be  invaded  and  conquered  on  their  own  soil. 

On  land,  the  overwhelming  superiority  of  the  North  in  num- 
bers made  the  first  task  fairly  easy.  The  Border  States  were 
quickly  occupied,  and  the  South  was  kept  upon  the  defensive 
except  for  some  invasions  into  Kentucky  and  a  cavalry  raid 
across  the  Ohio,  and  for  two  formidable  invasions  across  the 
Potomac,  —  the  first  turned  back  at  Antietam  (September  17, 
1862),  and  the  second  (the  "high-tide  of  the  Confederacy"), 
at  Gettysburg  (July  1-3,  1863). 

On  the  three  thousand  miles  of  coast,  the  matter  was  more 
difficult.     April  19,  President  Lincoln  declared  a  blockade; 

1  A  constitutional  difficulty  was  evaded  by  a  legal  fiction.  The  Constitution 
forbids  Congress  to  divide  a  State  without  its  own  consent.  But  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington  assumed  that  the  only  legal  citizens  were  the  "loyal" 
ones,  and  that  the  loyal  legislature  of  the  western  counties  was  the  legal  repre- 
sentative of  the  entire  State. 

2  Andrew  D.  White  (§  348,  note)  tells  us  in  his  Autobiography  that  in  June 
his  uncle,  a  friend  of  Seward's,  "a  thoughtful  man  of  affairs,  successful  in 
business,  not  at  all  prone  to  sanguine  views"  returned  from  a  visit  to  Wash- 
ington and  said:  "Depend  upon  it,  it  is  all  right.  Seward  says  they  have 
decided  to  end  the  trouble  at  once,  even  if  it  is  necessary  to  raise  an  army  of 
fifty  thousand  men  ( !) ;  that  they  will  send  troops  immediately  to  Richmond, 
and  finish  the  whole  thing,  so  that  the  country  can  go  on  quietly  about  its 
business." 


PLAN  OF  CAMPAIGNS  599 

but  this  was  little  more  than  a  statement  of  intention.  Only 
twelve  ships  were  at  the  immediate  disposal  of  the  government. 
The  rest  of  the  small  navy  of  forty^nine  ships  had  fallen 
into*  Southern  hands  or  was  scattered  far  in  foreign  ports. 
But  blockading  squadrons  were  hurriedly  bought,  built,  and 
adapted  out  of  coasting  steamers  and  ferryboats;  and  in  a 
few  months  the  paper  blockade  became  real.  From  that  time 
to  the  end,  the  throttling  grip  on  Southern  commerce  clung 
closer  and  closer. 

The  export  crops,  cotton  and  tobacco,  were  robbed  of  value.  In  1§6D 
the  cotton  export  amounted  to  nearly  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars ; 
in  1861,  it  sank  to  forty -two  millions  ;  and  in  1862,  to  four  millions.  As 
arms,  railway  material,  clothing,  wore  out,  it  was  almost  impossible  to 
replenish  the  supply  (§  367).  Before  the  end  of  the  first  year,  there  was 
an  alarming  scarcity  of  salt,  butter,  coffee,  candles,  and  medicines.  By 
recourse  to  homespun,  and  by  raising  90m  instead  of  cotton,  part  of  the 
need  was  met.  Part  was  beyond  remedy.  Only  with  extreme  difficulty 
could  the  government  smuggle  in  the  paper  on  which  to  print  its  currency. 
For  correspondence  and  for  newspapers,  wall  paper  or  brown  wrapping 
paper  was  soon  in  demand. 

Southern  sympathizers  and  venturesome  capitalists  made  it  a  business 
to  build  swift  "blockade  runners"  to  carry  supplies  to  Confederate  ports 
from  the  Bermudas,  and  to  bring  out  the  cotton  piled  up  at  Southern 
wharves  and  worth  fabulous  prices  in  the  idle  European  factories.  Fif- 
teen hundred  such  vessels  were  captured  during  the  war  ;  and,  before 
the  close,  they  had  nearly  vanished  from  the  seas.  While  trips  could  be 
made  at  all,  profits  were  enormous.  A  ton  of  salt,  costing  $7.50  outside 
the  Confederacy,  could  be  sold  inside  in  gold  for  a  profit  of  20,000  per 
cent. 

For  one  moment  it  looked  as  if  the  Union  fleets  would  be  swept  from 
the  seas,  and  the  blockade  raised.  When  the  government  troops  aban- 
doned Norfolk  navy  yard  (on  the  secession  of  Virginia),  they  left  there, 
only  partially  destroyed,  the  frigate  Merrimac.  The  Confederates  built 
on  her  hull  an  iron  roofing,  and  sent  her  forth  as  the  Virginia  against  the 
wooden  frigates  of  the  United  States  in  Hampton  Roads.  This  first 
armored  ram  on  the  American  coast l  sank  two  towering  ships  (March  8, 

1  Vessels  had  been  covered  with  iron  plates  in  some  of  the  earlier  cam- 
paigns on  the  Mississippi  ;  and  England  and  France  had  constructed  some 
ironclads  ;  but  it  was  the  spectacular  battle  of  u  the  Monitor  and  Merrimac" 


600  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

1862)  and  steamed  back  to  her  anchorage,  confident  of  completing  her 
mission  on  the  morrow.  But,  during  that  night,  arrived  at  the  Roads 
another  type  of  iron  vessel,  the  Monitor,  with  low,  flat  deck  surmounted 
by  a  revolving  turret  mounting  two  huge  guns, — a  "cheese  boxjDn  a 
raft."  After  a  sharp  engagement,  the  Virginia  was  driven  to  seek  shel- 
ter. The  blockade  was  saved  ;  but  the  knell  had  sounded  for  wooden 
men-of-war. 

Invasion  of  the  Confederacy  on  the  land  side  had  been  simplified  tre- 
mendously by  the  saving  of  the  Border  States  to  the  Union.  Three 
primary  lines  were  now  plainly  indicated  by  the  nature  of  the  case. 
(1)  The  Army  of  the  Potomac,  with  headquarters  about  Washington, 
must  try  to  capture  Richmond,  the  political  center  of  the  Confederacy, 
and  crush  the  army  of  defense  (the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia).  (2)  In 
the  West,  the  Unionists  must  secure  the  Tennessee  and  Cumberland 
rivers,  so  opening  roads  into  Mississippi  and  Alabama,  and  occupying 
Tennessee.  And  (3)  the  course  of  the  Mississippi  had  to  be  secured  by 
the  capture  of  such  Confederate  strongholds  as  New  Madrid,  Island  No. 
10,  Port  Hudson,  Memphis,  and  New  Orleans.1 

Vicksburg,  the  last  of  these  river  fortresses  to  hold  out,  was  forced  to 
surrender  to  General  Grant  on  July  3,  1863  (the  final  day  of  Gettysburg)  ; 
so  that  the  Father  of  Waters  "once  more  rolled  un vexed  to  the  sea," 
cutting  off  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  Texas  from  the  main  body  of  the 
Confederacy.  The  second  task  had  begun  earlier,  but  lasted  longer. 
Grant  had  captured  Forts  Donelson  and  Henry,  commanding  the  lower 
courses  of  the  Tennessee  rivers,  in  1862  ;  but  Union  occupation  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  indeed  of  Kentucky  and  the  line  of  the  Ohio,  was  incessantly 
threatened,  until,  after  several  oscillating  and  bloody  campaigns,  and, 
finally,  some  of  the  most  desperate  fighting  of  the  war,  Grant,  Thomas, 
and  Sherman  drove  the  Confederates  from  the  vicinity  of  Chattanooga, 
in  November  of  1863. 

This  decisive  victory  opened  up  a  fourth  line  of  invasion,  to  Atlanta,  — 
at  the  farther  end  of  the  Atlanta  and  Chattanooga  Railway,  —  only  135 
miles  distant,  but  with  an  intervening  region  of  rugged  mountains. 
Atlanta  was  located  in  the  iron  and   coal  region  of   northern   Georgia 

which  demonstrated  to  the  world  the  arrival  of  a  new  order  — following  the 
insolent  victories  of  the  Merrimac  on  the  preceding  day. 

The  Monitor  was  the  invention  of  a  Swedish  immigrant,  John  Ericsson ; 
and  she  had  been  just  completed,  after  a  hurried  three  months. 

1  Secondary  lines  of  invasion  were  pointed  out  by  the  location  of  the  more 
important  railways  —  especially  those  from  west  to  east,  such  as  the  Memphis 
and  Charleston  Road  —  to  secure  which  engagements  were  fought  in  1862  at 
Corinth,  Pittsburg  Landing,  Shiloh,  and  Memphis. 


PLAN  OF  CAMPAIGNS 


601 


and  was  becoming  a  center  for  manufacturing  arms  and  railway  ma- 
terial. As  the  only  such  center  in  the  Confederacy,  its  capture  was 
of  supreme  importance.  This  became  Sherman's  task,  in  a  four  months1 
campaign  of  the  next  summer,  against  the  skillful  opposition  of  the  out- 
numbered Johnston  and  the  pounding  of  his  desperate  successor,  Hood. 

Atlanta  was  taken  September  3,  1864.     Leaving  its  factories  in  ashes, 
and  detaching  Thomas  with  sufficient  force  to  engage  Hood,  Sherman 


Scene  of  the  Civil  War. 

then  (November)  struck  out  a  fifth  line  of  invasion  through  the  heart  of 
the  Confederacy  for  Savannah, — living  on  the  country  and  finding  not 
even  a  militia  to  oppose  him. 

Meantime,  in  the  East,  the  genius  of  Lee 1  and  the  splendid  fighting 
qualities  of  his  devoted  but  diminishing  army,  aided,  too,  by  geographi- 


iKobert  E.  Lee  ranks  among  the  noblest  figures  in  American  history.  He 
loved  the  Union  deeply ;  but  when  Virginia  seceded,  he  declined  an  offer  of 
the  command  of  the  Union  armies,  and  gave  his  sword  to  the  Confederacy 
(§  368) .  The  recent  acceptance  by  Congress  of  his  statue,  to  stand  in  Statuary 
Hall  in  the  Capitol  beside  Virginia's  other  great  son,  Washington,  fitly  denotes 
the  reunion  of  North  and  South  as  one  people. 


}J 


1 


602  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

cal  conditions, — broad  streams  subject  to  sudden  floods,  and  trackless 
swamps,  —  held  the  Union  forces  at  bay  year  after  year,  until  Grant  was 
brought  from  the  West  and  given  men  in  ever  fresh  multitudes  to  wear 
down  his  opponents.  Even  then,  Lee's  thinned  and  starving  veterans 
remained  unconquered,  until  the  empty  shell  of  the  Confederacy  had 
been  pierced  from  circumference  to  circumference,  and  its  absolute  ex- 
haustion bared  to  the  world,  by  Sherman's  devastating  "March  to  the 
Sea."     The  South  did  not  yield  :  it  was  pulverized. 


375.  Forces.  —  In  the  North  one  man  out  of  two  bore  arms 
at  some  period  of  the  war;  and  one_man  out  of  three  served 
j  three  years.  In  the  South  nine  men  out  of  ten  bore  arms,  and 
eight  out  of  ten  served  three  years.  The  total  enlistments  in 
the  North  counted  2,900^000 ;  in  the  South,  1,400,000.  The 
three-year  average  for  the  North  was  1,557,000  ;  for  the  South, 
1,082,000.  With  far  less  effort  than  the  South,  the  North 
kept  a  half  more  men  in  the  field.  But  this  does  not  take 
account  of  the  slaves  who  served  as  teamsters,  laborers  on 
fortifications,  cooks,  and  servants,  in  Southern  armies,  do- 
ing work  that  had  to  be  performed  by  enlisted  men  on  the 
other  side.1  The  Southern  forces,  too,  were  able  to  concen- 
trate more  rapidly,  because  they  moved  on  the  inside  lines 
and  knew  the  roads  better.  Perhaps,  too,  they  were  handled 
with  greater  skill.  Certainly,  until  the  final  year,  the  armies 
in  actual  conflict  did  not  often  vary  greatly  in  numbers. 

Then,  indeed,  the  exhausted  South  could  no  longer  make 
good  her  losses  in  battle  —  though  her  stern  recruiting  system 
did  "  rob  the  cradle  and  the  grave."  Her  ranks  shrank  daily, 
while  the  Northern  armies  grew  larger  than  ever.  At  the 
opening  of  that  last  terrible  year  of  slaughter,  from  May  5  to 
June  12  (1864),  —  or  from  the  Wilderness  to  Petersburg, — 
Grant  hurled  his  120,000  veterans  almost  daily  at  Lee's  70,000, 
suffering  a  loss  of  60,000  to  Lee's  14,000.  New  recruits  were 
ready  to  step  into  the  gaps  in  the  Union  regiments ;  while  the 

1  On  the  plantations,  too,  under  the  management  of  women,  slaves  raised 
the  food  crops  for  the  South.  Wonderful  to  say,  there  was  no  hint  of  a 
slave-rising  during  the  war,  and,  until  1863,  very  little  increase  of  runaways. 


FORCES,   NORTH  AND   SOUTH  603 

Confederate  ranks  could  only  close  up  grimly.  In  the  remain- 
ing campaigns,  the  Union  forces  usually  outnumbered  their 
opponents  at  least  two  to  one.  To  add  to  the  disparity,  Grant's 
stern  policy  refused  longer  to  exchange  prisoners.1 

In  1863  there  was  a  falling  off  of  enlistment  in  the  North,  and  Con- 
gress authorized  a  "draft,"  a  conscription  by  lot  from  able-bodied  males 
between  the  ages  of  twenty  and  forty.  In  enforcing  this  law,  some  officials 
seem  to  have  discriminated  against  Democratic  districts ;  and  violent 
anti-draft  riots  broke  out  in  several  Eastern  cities.  These  were  put  down 
sternly  by  the  military ;  but  not  till  New  York  had  been  three  days  in 
the  hands  of  a  murderous  "nigger-hunting"  mob,  and  only  after  a  sacri- 
fice of  a  thousand  lives. 

Altogether  the  draft  furnished  less  than  forty  thousand  troops.  Its 
real  work  lay  in  influencing  State  legislatures  to  stimulate  enlistment  by 
generous  bounties.  Such  moneys  furnished  support  for  dependent  mothers 
and  for  children,  and  so  enabled  many  a  man  to  volunteer  who  otherwise 
must  have  worked  at  home.  But  it  remains  absolutely  true,  as  Lowell 
said,  that  "the  bounty  which  drew  our  best  soldiers  to  the  ranks  was  an 
idea.''''  For  the  South,  this  was  even  more  true,  mistaken  though  the  idea 
was ;  but  even  the  South  had  recourse  to  conscription,  extending  it  to 
boys  of  seventeen  and  men  of  fifty.  In  most  districts,  however,  volunteer 
enlistment  had  left  small  gleanings  for  this  desperate  law. 

1  Military  prisons  are  always  a  sore  subject.  There  is  usually  a  tendency, 
in  a  long  conflict,  for  their  administration,  on  both  sides,  to  fall  to  men  less 
competent  and  less  chivalrous  than  those  who  seek  service  at  the  front. 
Even  in  the  early  years  of  the  war,  there  had  been  terrible  misery  in  the 
prisons  at  the  South  —  where  medicines  and  supplies  were  wanting  even  for 
the  Confederate  soldiers.  With  less  excuse,  there  had  been  cruel  suffering  also 
in  Northern  prison  camps.  Toward  the  close,  when  the  South  was  unable  to 
feed  her  soldiers  at  the  front,  or  to  spare  adequate  forces  for  guards,  condi- . 
tions  became  horrible  in  the  Southern  prisous,  —  especially  after  Grant's 
refusal  to  exchange  prisoners  packed  the  already  crowded  Libby  and 
Andersonville  with  Union  soldiers.  On  this  whole  topic  the  student  will 
do  well  to  consult  Rhodes'  exhaustive  and  impartial  treatment  (History,  V, 
483-515) ,  and  especially  to  note  his  conclusions :  — 

"  There  was  no  intention  on  either  side  to  maltreat  the  prisoners.  A  mass 
of  men  had  to  be  cared  for  unexpectedly.  Arrangements  were  made  in  a 
hurry,  and,  as  neither  side  expected  a  long  duration  of  the  war,  were  only 
makeshifts.  .  .  .  There  was  bad  management  at  the  North  and  still  worse  at 
the  South,  owing  to  a  less  efficient  organization,  with  meager  resources.  .  .  . 
All  things  considered,  the  statistics  [of  deaths]  show  no  reason  why  the  North 
should  reproach  the  South." 


604  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

Said  Lowell,  again,  in  1865:  "What  splendid  possibilities  has  not 
our  trial  revealed,  even  to  ourselves !  What  costly  stuff  whereof  to 
make  a  Nation  !  "  The  great  Republic  emerged  from  the  battle-storm, 
glorious  and  whole,  while  the  world  stood  amazed,  convinced  against  its 
will.  And  yet  the  resources  of  the  North  were  never  lacking.  They 
grew  faster  than  they  could  be  spent ;  and  the  North  had  more  men, 
more  tilled  acres,  more  manufactures  in  1865  than  in  1861. 

But  for  the  South,  as  Woodrow  Wilson  says  so  well,  "the  great 
struggle  was  maintained  by  sheer  spirit  and  self-devotion,  in  spite  of 
constantly  diminishing  resources  and  constantly  waning  hope.  .  .  . 
And  all  for  a  belated  principle  in  government,  an  outgrown  economy,  an 
impossible  purpose.  There  is  in  history  no  devotion  not  religious,  no 
constancy  not  meant  for  success,  that  can  furnish  a  parallel  to  the  devo- 
tion and  constancy  of  the  South  in  this  extraordinary  war."  The  Ameri- 
can of  to-day  sorrows  at  the  terrible  sacrifice  the  South  made  for  mistaken 
ends  ;  but  his  heart  swells  with  patriotic  emotion  at  the  heroic  vision  of 
that  chivalrous  devotion  to  the  Lost  Cause,  —  that  gallant  constancy, 
that  peerless  courage. 

376.  War  Finance.  —  The  Buchanan  administration  left  the  treasury 
empty,  a  debt  mounting,  and  credit  dubious;  but  Salmon  P.  Chase, 
Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was  supported  loyally  by  Congress 
in  a  course  of  vigorous  war  finance.  Year  by  year,  bonds  were  sold  at 
home  or  abroad  in  amounts  which  at  any  earlier  time  would  have  seemed 
fabulous.  A  direct  tax  of  $20,000,000  was  apportioned  among  the  States. 
An  income  tax  of  3  per  cent  on  all  incomes  over  $800  was  imposed, 
and  in  1864  this  was  raised  to  4  per  cent,  with  5  and  10  per  cent 
rates  on  very  large  surpluses.  Internal  excises  and  stamp  duties  of  the 
most  varied  and  searching  description  reached  almost  all  callings,  prod- 
ucts, and  business  transactions.  Session  by  session  Congress  devised 
higher  and  higher  "  war-tariffs^  rising  to  rates  before  unheard  of,  to 
remain  without  change  twenty  years  after  the  war  was  over.  And  a 
series  of  "Legal  Tender  Acts"  provided  half  a  billion  of  dollars  of  paper 
money,  based  only  on  the  faith  of  the  government  and  amounting  to  a 
"forced  loan."1 

These  "greenbacks"  mentioned  no  specific  date  for  redemption,  nor 
did  the  law  provide  any  specific  security.     The  amount  exceeded  the 

1  Distinguish  between  taxes  and  borrowings  in  this  statement. 


WAR  FINANCE  605 

real  need  for  a  circulating  medium  ;  and  of  course  the  value  fluctuated 
with  success  or  failure  in  the  field.  Depreciation  set  in  at  once. 
Gold  was  hoarded  or  sent  abroad  in  trade;  and  on  one  dark  day  in 
1864  it  sold  at  285,  while  most  of  the  time  after  1862,  a  dollar  of  paper 
was  really  worth  only  from  fifty  to  seventy  cents.  Prices  rose,  for  this 
reason  and  for  other  causes  connected  with  the  war,  to  some  90  per 
cent  above  the  old  level.  Wages  rose,  too ;  but  more  slowly,  and  only 
two  thirds  as  much,  —  so  that  the  laboring  classes  bore  the  great  part  of 
the  cost  of  the  war.  Workingmen  endured  much  suffering,  even  while 
"  business"  was  exceedingly  "prosperous." 

Toward  the  close  of  the  war,  taxation  was  bringing  in  half  a  billion 
a  year;  but  in  1863  the  expenditure  had  risen  to  two  and  a  half  millions 
a  day — or  four  times  the  daily  income.  Business  could  not  well  stand 
more  taxes  ;  nor  could  more  money  be  borrowed  by  legal-tender  issues. . 
The  extra  amount  must  be  borrowed  by  selling  new  bonds.  But  how 
could  the  government  induce  capitalists  to  buy  them  in  sufficient 
amounts  ?  Chase  solved  this  problem  in  part  by  the  National  Banking 
Acts  of  1863  and  1864  —  the  basis  also  of  an  admirable  system  of 
banks  and  bank  currency,  better  than  America  had  before  known,  im- 
perfect though  it  is  for  more  recent  needs. 

Any  associations  of  five  or  more  persons,  with  a  capital  of  at  least 
$100,000,  were  authorized  to  organize  a  National  bank,  purchase  National 
bonds  to  the  amount  of  one  third  the  capital,  deposit  the  bonds  in  the 
National  Treasury,  and  issue  "National  bank  notes"  to  the  amount  of 
90  per  cent  of  such  deposit.1  Thus  the  government  would  sell  its 
bonds ;  and  the  country  would  have  a  uniform  bank  currency  guaranteed 
by  the  Nation,  in  place  of  the  varying  and  uncertain  State-bank  issues.  >   v 

Just  at  first,  little  use  was  made  of  this  law ;  but  a  supplementary 
Act  placed  a  tax  of  10  per  cent  on  notes  issued  by  State  banks.  Then 
hundreds  of  State  banks  reorganized  as  National  banks,  and  there  was 
no  more  difficulty  in  placing  bonds.2  \^/vX 

1  This  system  was  based  upon  the  successful  "free-banking"  system  in 
force  in  New  York,  where  bank  issues  were  secured  by  State  bonds. 

2  Capital  is  notoriously  timid,  and  business  notoriously  selfish. 
There  were  not  wanting  the  customary  shames  of  army  contractors 
who  swelled  their  fortunes  by  furnishing  shoddy  clothing,  paper-soled 
shoes,  and  rotten  food  to  the  troops;  while  other  more  adventurous 
pirates  of  finance  made  fabulous  profits  by  illicit  or  treasonable  trade 
with  the  South.  But  more  typical,  after  all,  is  Andrew  D.  White's  story 
{Autobiography,  I,  89)  of  the  roughly  expressed  idealism  of  a  multimillionaire 


J 


606  THE   CIVIL  WAR 

Northern  statesmanship  also  devoted  itself  deliberately  and  effectively 
to  encouraging  the  production  of  wealth  —  that  there  might  be  more  to 
tax.  The  demand  for  war  supplies  and  the  high  tariffs  stimulated  manu- 
factures enormously-  Congress  gave  vast  amounts  of  land  and  money  to 
the  Union  Pacific  to  enable  that  company  to  build  a  railway  across  the 
continent ;  and  other  railways  opened  up  great  tracts  of  new  territory  to 
agriculture.  In  1862  the  Morrill  Bill  offered  National  land  grants  to  State 
institutions  providing  scientific  training  in  agriculture  and  in  mechanical 
arts.  The  same  year  the  long-delayed  "  Homestead  Bill"  (§367)  offered 
free  160  acres  of  land  to  any  head  of  a  family  who  would  live  upon 
and  improve  it. 

The  South  had  little  wealth  to  tax.  It  had  no  capitalists  to  buy  its 
bonds ;  and  they  could  not  long  be  sold  abroad.  Paper  money  was  issued 
in  floods  by  both  central  and  State  governments,  —  and  depreciated  even 
faster  than  the  famous  "Continental  currency"  of  Revolutionary  days, 
so  that  in  1864,  it  was  not  unusual  for  a  Southern  soldier  to  pay  $200  for 
a  poor  pair  of  shoes.  The  Confederacy  did  not  formally  make  this  paper 
a  legal  tender  ;  but,  before  the  end  of  the  war,  it  was  forced  to  seize  sup- 
plies from  the  fields  and  barns,  and  it  could  pay  for  them  only  in  this 
money  —  at  rates  fixed  from  month  to  month  by  government  decree. 
Neither  bonds  nor  currency  were  ever  redeemed. 

Thus  the  South  lived  upon  itself.  And  the  capital  that  could  not  be 
eaten,  —  that  which  was  fixed  in  buildings  and  roads,  —  was  burned  or 
ruined  by  the  Northern  invaders.  Southern  wealth  was  gone  before  the 
survivors  of  her  heroic  men  laid  down  their  arms.  The  world  has  never 
seen  another  so  vast  and  complete  a  devastation  of  a  civilized  land. 

377.  Slavery  and  the  War.  — Large  elements  in  the  North, 
devoted  to  the  Union,  cared  nothing  about  abolishing  slavery, 
or  were  positively  averse  to  doing  so ;  while  the  loyal  Border 
States  were  kept  in  the  Union  only  by  the  repeated  assurances 

—  still  a  rare  phenomenon  in  the  sixties  —  who  had  "  risen  by  hard  work  from 
simple  beginnings  to  the  head  of  an  immense  business  ...  a  hard,  determined, 
shrewd  man  of  affairs,  the  last  man  in  the  world  to  show  anything  like  senti- 
mentalism.  ...  He  said  something  advising  investment  in  the  newly 
created  national  debt.  I  answered,  '  You  are  not,  then,  one  of  those  who 
believe  that  our  debt  will  be  repudiated  ?  '  He  answered :  •  Repudiation  or 
no  repudiation,  I  am  putting  everything  I  can  rake  and  scrape  together  into 
national  bonds,  to  help  this  government  maintain  itself;  for,  by  God,  if  I  am 
not  to  have  any  country,  I  don't  want  any  money.'  " 


AND   SLAVERY  607 

of  the  government  that  the  war  was  not  intended  to  free  slaves. 
The  day  after  Bull  Run,  by  107  to  2,  the  Republican  House 
reassured  the  War  Democrats  and  the  Border  States  to  this 
effect.  In  the  opening  weeks  of  the  struggle,  it  is  true,  Gen- 
eral Butler,  at  Fortress  Monroe,  refused  to  deliver  to  an  owner 
in  the  Confederate  army  a  runaway  slave  who  had  escaped  to 
the  Union  lines,  —  on  the  ground  that  the  man  was  "contra- 
band of  war"  (since  he  might  be  made  useful  to  the  enemy). 
This  logic  was  so  sound,  and  the  phrase  so  caught  the  popular 
approval,  that  the  government  did  not  interfere  with  the  Union 
generals  who  chose  thereafter  to  free  "  contrabands  "  seeking 
refuge  within  their  lines,1  but  when  certain  generals  went  far- 
ther, Lincoln  felt  constrained  to  interpose.  Thus,  General 
Fremont,  in  command  in  Missouri,  proclaimed  free  the  slaves 
of  all  citizens  of  that  State  who  were  in  arms  for  the  Con- 
federacy; but  the  order  was  promptly  disavowed.  For  a 
year  and  more,  all  the  public  utterances  of  the  President  tried 
to  keep  true  to  his  early  promises  ;  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act 
was  enforced  for  all  slave  owners  in  the  loyal  States. 

But  it  became  more  and  more  apparent  that,  if  the  North 
was  successful,  the  result  must  be  freedom  for  the  Negro;  and,  in 
March,  1862,  President  Lincoln  recommended  to  Congress  that 
the  States  should  be  invited  to  decree  gradual  emancipation, 
and  that,  wherever  this  was  done  the  United  States  should  com- 
pensate the  owners  and  colonize  the  freed  negroes.2 

This  wise  plan  was  never  adopted.  In  April  Congress 
abolished  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  it  is  true  (with  an 
appropriation  of  $1,000,000  to  compensate  the  owners);  and, 
in  June,  it  abolished  slavery  in  the  Territories,  without  com- 
pensation. It  also  passed  resolutions  approving  Lincoln's  plan 
for  the  States.     But  the  President's  repeated  and  earnest  ap- 


1  For  two  years  or  more,  the  majority  of  the  generals  and  higher  officers 
were  inclined  rather  to  enforce  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act  as  to  such  refugees, 
even  when  their  owners  were  serving  in  the  Confederate  army. 

2  He  pointed  out  that  the  cost  of  the  war  for  three  months  would  pay  for  all 
the  slaves  in  the  loyal  States. 


608  THE   CIVIL  WAR 

peals  to  the  Union  leaders  of  the  Border  to  persuade  their 
States  to  act  promptly,  and  secure  compensation  for  their 
slaves  before  it  was  too  late,  fell  upon  deaf  ears.  They  could 
not  yet  believe  his  prophecy  that  soon  they  would  find  "  bonds 
better  property  than  bondsmen "  ;  and  the  opportunity  passed. 
Moreover,  Congress  hesitated  to  grant  the  $200,000,000  of 
bonds  which  Lincoln  asked  to  have  placed  at  his  disposal,  for 
use  in  case  any  State  should  act;  but  it  did  pass  a  "Confisca- 
tion Act,"  authorizing  Union  generals  to  free  the  slaves  of 
all  "Rebels." 

Congress  adjourned  for  the  season  on  July  17.  Five  days 
later,  Lincoln  read  to  his  surprised  Cabinet  the  draft  of  a  pro- 
posed Emancipation  Proclamation.  This  was  not  to  apply  to  the 
Border  States,  or  to  the  Southern  territory  under  Union  control. 
The  only  warrant  in  the  Constitution  for  such  action  by  the 
President  had  to  be  found  in  his  powers  as  Commander  in 
Chief.  The  Proclamation,  in  form,  was  merely  a  war 
measure,  designed  to  weaken  the  enemy.  At  Seward's  sugges- 
tion, Lincoln  put  the  matter  aside,  to  wait  for  some  signal 
victory  —  of  which  there  had  been  few  for  a  long  year  —  that 
the  Proclamation  might  not  seem  the  act  of  a  despair- 
ing government.1  Two  months  later,  Lee's  retreat  after 
Antietam  (§  374)  furnished  the  appearance  of  a  victory;  and 
(September  23)    the   great    Proclamation   was   given   to   the 


xThe  secret  of  Lincoln's  purpose  was  perfectly  kept,  —  with  the  curious 
result  that  the  Northern  radicals  at  just  this  time  were  loudest  in  abusing  him 
for  not  acting  against  slavery.  To  a  bitter  protest,  headed  by  Horace  Greeley, 
Lincoln  replied  persuasively :  "  I  would  save  the  Union.  I  would  save  it 
the  shortest  way  under  the  Constitution.  ...  If  there  be  those  who  would 
not  save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same  time  save  slavery,  I  do  not 
agree  with  them.  If  there  be  those  who  would  not  save  the  Union  unless  at 
the  same  time  they  could  destroy  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  ...  If  I 
could  save  the  Union  without  freeing  any  slave,  I  would  do  it;  and  if  I  could 
save  it  by  freeing  all  the  slaves,  I  would  do  it.  .  .  .  I  have  stated  my  purpose 
according  to  my  view  of  my  official  duty :  and  I  intend  no  modification  of 
my  oft-expressed  personal  wish  that  all  men  everywhere  might  be  free." 
The  student  will  find  both  parts  of  this  interesting  correspondence  in  Rhodes, 
IV,  73-74,  or  Morse's  Lincoln,  II,  105-110. 


AND  SLAVERY  0 


609 


world,  —  to  go  into  operation  on  the  first  day  of  the  coming 
year  (1863). 

The  Proclamation  made  an  era  in  history.  At  the  moment,  of  course, 
it  was  a  paper  edict,  and  did  not  actually  free  a  slave.  But  from  that 
day  the  war  became  a  war  to  free  slaves;  and,  as  Union  armies  slowly  con- 
quered their  way  into  the  South,  thousands,  and  finally  millions,  did 
become  free.  Abroad,  too,  the  Proclamation  put  an  end  to  all  possibility 
of  foreign  intervention  in  behalf  of  the  South. 

True,  cautious  as  Lincoln  had  been,  it  seemed  for  a  time  as  though 
he  had  moved  too  swiftly  for  Northern  opinion.    The  fall  elections  gave 


anti-war  majorities  in  several  of  the  largest  Northern  States,  before 
strongly  Republican.  In  Ohio  the  Democrats  carried  14  congressional 
districts  out  of  19;  in  Indiana,  8  out  of  n;  in  Illinois,  11  out  of  14. 
Says  Professor  A.  B.  Hart  (Salmon  P.  Chase,  270)  :  "  No  Republican 
majority  could  be  secured  out  of  the  free  States  ;  but  a  silent  and  drastic 
process  was  applied  by  the  military  in  the  loyal  Border  States,  which  caused 
them  to  furnish  enough  Republican  members  to  make  up  the  majority 
without  which  the  war  must  have  failed."  New  England  and  the  West 
just  balanced  the  Democratic  gains  in  the  North  Central  States ;  but 
"strangely  enough,"  as  McCall's  Thaddeus  Stevens  phrases  it,  it  was 
Missouri,  Kentucky,  and  Maryland  which  furnished  the  small  Republican 
majority,  by  electing  21  Republicans  in  a  total  of  26  districts  ! 


610  *THE  CIVIL  WAR 

But  after  an  interval  of  dismay  the  Nation  rallied.  Emancipation 
was  accepted  as  a  settled  policy  ;  and,  in  1864,  Lincoln  was  reelected 
triumphantly,  carrying  every  loyal  State  except  New  Jersey,  Delaware, 
and  Kentucky. 

The  doom  of  slavery  had  sounded.  Before  the  close  of  the  war,  Mary- 
land, Missouri,  and  West  Virginia  abolished  the  institution  within  their 
limits,  without  compensation;  and  "Reconstruction  governments'1 
(§  382)  in  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  and  Virginia  freed  the  slaves  in  those 
parts  of  the  Confederacy  to  which  the  great  Proclamation  had  not  ap- 
plied. Then  "the  whole  thing  was  wound  up,"1  —  all  informalities 
legalized,  all  possible  gaps  covered,  and  the  institution  itself  forever 
forbidden,2  —  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  (ratified  in  December,  1865). 
It  was  this  Amendment  which  freed  the  remaining  slaves  in  Kentucky 
and  Delaware. 

After  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  the  government  began  to  re- 
ceive Negro  regiments  into  the  army.  More  than  fifty  thousand  black 
men  were  enrolled  during  the  remaining  months  of  the  war. 

378.  Foreign  Relations.  —  At  the  opening  of  the  war,  the 
government  tried  to  look  upon  the  Confederates  merely  as 
rioters,  —  "  combinations  of  individuals  "  obstructing  the  laws. 
This  view  would  have  entitled  the  United  States  to  treat  pris- 
oners as  pirates.  A  threat,  indeed,  was  made  of  such  a  policy ; 
but  a  prompt  notice  from  the  Confederacy  that  Union  prisoners 
would  be  executed  in  retaliation  put  an  end  to  this  unwise  proj- 
ect. Moreover,  the  proclamation  of  blockade  had  itself 
amounted  to  an  acknowledgment  that  the  South  was  a  bel- 
ligerent power,  outside  the  Union  —  since  no  nation  would 
"blockade"  its  own  ports.      But  when  England  and  France 

1  Lincoln's  expressive  phrase,  in  urging  such  an  amendment  upon  Congress 
nearly  a  year  before. 

2  The  Proclamation  had  freed  slaves,  but  it  had  not  made  slavery  subse- 
quently illegal.  The  government  had  no  power  to  do  that  as  a  war  measure. 
But  the  great  Amendment  runs  —  after  the  phrasing  of  the  Northwest  Ordi- 
nance—  "Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  .  .  .  shall  exist  within 
the  United  States  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction."  The  contrast 
between  this  actual  Thirteenth  Amendment  and  the  proposed  "Thirteenth 
Amendment"  of  1861,  to  guarantee  slavery  forever  against  national  inter- 
ference (§  370),  measures  part  of  the  value  of  the  war. 


AND  ENGLAND  611 

followed  that  proclamation  by  proclaiming  neutrality  between 
the  "  belligerents,"  the  North  was  deeply  incensed. 

Both  North  and  South  had  counted  upon  English  sympathy.  The 
North  felt  that  England  must  favor  war  against  slavery,  —  forgetting,  per- 
haps, that  for  more  than  a  year  it  vociferated  that  it  was  not  warring 
upon  slavery,  and  ignoring  also  the  fact  that  our  mounting  tariff,  closing 
the  usual  market  to  English  manufactures,  was  a  constant  irritation. 
The  South  hoped  that  England  would  break  the  blockade,  to  secure  cotton, 
so  as  to  give  work  to  her  idle  factories  and  her  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
starving  operatives.1 

The  acknowledgment  of  belligerency  was  perhaps  made  with  unneces- 
sary haste  ;  but  it  stated  a  fact  of  which  foreign  powers  must  necessarily 
soon  have  taken  notice.  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that  such  action 
afforded  no  real  cause  for  complaint.  It  granted  to  the  Confederates 
certain  rights  for  their  privateers  in  English  and  French  ports,  which,  as 
mere  rioters  or  pirates,  they  would  not  have  enjoyed  ;  but  it  was  not  at 
all  a  recognition  of  the  Confederacy  as  an  independent  nation.  That 
would  almost  certainly  have  been  fatal  to  the  Union. 

•There  was  real  danger  of  this  catastrophe.  After  Bull  Run,  English 
society  generally  believed  that  the  South  could  not  be  conquered,  and 
was  more  and  more  inclined  to  look  upon  the  contest  as  one  between  em- 
pire and  self-government.  "  In  any  case,  since  the  South  must  win  in  the 
end,"  said  they,  "  the  sooner  the  matter  is  ended  the  better,  so  that  our 
cotton  mills  may  turn  their  spindles  again  and  the  danger  of  social  revolu- 
tion from  starving  workmen  here  be  removed."     Moreover,  now  that  it 


1  Richard  Cobden  wrote  to  Charles  Sumner  (December  5,  1861) :  "  You 
know  how  ignorant  we  are  of  your  history,  geography,  etc.  .  .  .  There  are 
two  subjects  upon  which  we  are  unanimous  and  fanatical  .  .  .  personal  free- 
dom and  free  trade.  In  your  case  we  see  a  mighty  struggle,  —  on  one  side  pro- 
tectionists, on  the  other  slave  owners.  The  protectionists  say  they  do  not  seek 
to  put  down  slavery:  the  slave  owners  say  they  do  want  free  trade.  Need 
you  wonder  at  the  confusion  in  John  Bull's  head  ?  "  —  Quoted  from  Mss.  by 
Rhodes  (III,  529) .    Punch  put  the  same  dilemma :  — 

"  The  South  enslaves  those  fellow  men 

Whom  we  all  love  so  dearly  : 
The  North  keeps  commerce  bound  again, 

Which  touches  us  more  nearly. 
Thus  a  divided  duty  we 

Perceive  in  this  hard  matter : 
Free  trade  or  sable  brother  free  ? 

O,  won't  we  choose  the  latter?  " 


612  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

seemed  safe,  the  governing  aristocracy  of  that  time 1  was  glad  to  show 
sympathy  for  the  corresponding  aristocracy  of  the  South.  Said  Gladstone 
—  not  yet  fully  out  of  his  Tory  period  —  ' '  Jefferson  Davis  and  other 
leaders  .  .  .  have  made  an  army ;  they  are  making  a  navy  ;  they  have 
made  ...  a  nation."  Still,  so  far  as  any  act  of  the  English  government 
is  concerned,  Mr.  Rhodes  to-day  and  Motley  2  at  the  time  agree  that  the 
North  had  no  cause  whatever  for  offense  until  November,  1861.  Then 
came  an  incident,  indeed,  which  heightened  animosities  and  nearly  led 
to  war. 

The  Confederacy  appointed  James  Mason  and  John  Slidell  commis- 
sioners to  England  and  France,  to  secure  recognition  and  alliance.  These 
gentlemen  ran  the  blockade  to  Havana,  and  there  took  passage  on  the 
English  steamship  Trent.  November  8,  the  Trent  was  overhauled  by 
an  over-zealous  captain  of  an  American  man-of-war  and  compelled  to 
submit  to  "search,"  —  the  two  commissioners  being  taken  from  her 
decks  and  carried  prisoners  to  Boston. 

The  North  burst  into  applause,  though  Lincoln  and  a  few  other  cool 
heads  saw  that  the  government  was  placed  in  the  wrong  by  this  violation 
of  a  right  of  neutral  vessels  for  which  America  had  so  long  been  ready 
to  fight.  England,  too,  had  always  prided  herself  particularly  on  afford- 
ing refuge  to  political  offenders  from  other  lands ;  and  there  was  now  a 
burst  of  sincere  indignation  in  that  country.  The  aristocracy  and  the 
government  used  the  opportunity  to  go  far  in  showing  Southern  sympa- 
thies. Troops  were  hurried  off  for  Canada,  and  a  peremptory  demand 
was  made  for  the  surrender  of  the  prisoners  and  for  an  apology  —  softened 
though  the  form  of  the  note  was,  from  the  original  draft,  through  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Prince  Consort  and  the  command  of  the  Queen.  After  un- 
wise delay,  due  to  fear  of  popular  feeling,  the  American  government 
yielded,  and  Mason  and  Slidell  were  placed  on  board  an  English  steamer. 
The  people  of  the  North  acquiesced ;  but  their  bitterness  toward  England 
was  intensified. 

In  another  international  incident  of  more  serious  nature,  the  English 
government  was  deeply  at  fault.  In  the  early  years  of  the  war,  the  South 
succeeded  in  getting  a  few  cruisers  to  sea,  to  prey  upon  Northern  com- 
merce. The  most  famous  one  never  entered  a  Confederate  port.  This 
vessel  was  built  in  England.  The  United  States'  minister  there,  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  warned  Lord  Russell  of  the  purpose  of  the  vessel  as  it 
neared  completion;  but  Russell  was  stupidly  incredulous,  and  trusted  to 

1  This  was  before  the  Reform  Bill  of  1867,  which  first  made  England  a 
democracy.    Cf .  Modern  History. 

2  One  of  America's  chief  representatives  in  Europe  at  the  time. 


AND  ENGLAND  613 

reports  of  his  subordinates  and  to  the  assurances  of  the  builders  that  the 
vessel  was  a  peaceful  one.  Thus  the  Alabama  was  allowed  to  escape  to 
sea,  where  she  took  on  her  armament,  and  soon  became  a  terror  to  the 
Northern  merchant  marine  —  until  she  was  overtaken  and  sunk  by  the 
Kearsage.  The  North  was  inclined  to  believe  that  the  English  government 
acted  in  bad  faith.  But  it  is  now  certain  that  Russell  was  guilty  only  of 
culpable  negligence  —  for  which  his  country  afterward  atoned  so  far  as 
possible  by  paying  the  u  AlaJbama^claims''  (§  393). 

More  serious  still  would  have  been  the  barely  defeated  project  of  the 
South  to  build  two  iron-clad  rams  in  England,  with  which  to  break  up  the 
blockade.  These  formidable  vessels  were  nearly  ready  for  sea  ;  and  Mr. 
Adams'  remonstrances  apparently  had  moved  Lord  Russell  only  to  inef- 
fectual precautions.  At  the  last  moment,  Adams  wrote  to  Russell,  "It 
would  be  superfluous  for  me  to  point  out  to  your  lordship  that  this  is  war." 
But  Russell  had  already  awakened,  and  had  just  given  effectual  orders  to 
seize  the  vessels. 

The  North,  then,  had  some  cause  to  blame  the  government  and  the 
aristocracy  of  England.  It  had  greater  cause,  not  always  duly  recognized, 
for  deep  gratitude  to  the  sound  heart  of  the  English  masses,  who  felt  dimly 
that  the  Union  was  fighting  slavery,  even  while  Unionists  denied  it 
loudly,  and  who  therefore  gave  the  North  a  heroic  support  through  cruel 
privations  —  in  many  ways  as  severe  as  those  borne  by  Americans. 
Says  Von  Hoist  of  this  matter  :  "  The  attitude  of  the  English  workingmen 
is  one  of  the  great  deeds  in  the  world's  history."  They  stood  nobly  by  the 
cause  of  democracy  and  free  labor,  as  their  own  cause  ;  and  their  attitude 
was  so  determined  that,  even  though  they  had  no  votes,  their  aristo- 
cratic government  did  not  venture  to  take  offensive  action  against  Amer- 
ica. It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that,  in  the  darkest  hour,  there  were 
not  wanting  English  leaders,  like  Richard  Cobden,  John  Bright,  and 
John  Stuart  Mill,  to  give  enthusiastic  support  to  the  North. 

France,  too,  felt  the  economic  pressure  due  to  the  lack  of  cotton,  though 
far  less  than  England,  and  the  Emperor  Napoleon  III  made  specific  pro- 
posals to  the  English  government  to  join  hands  in  recognizing  the  South 
and  breaking  the  blockade.  These  repeated  overtures  were  always  re- 
fused. With  perfect  right,  Cobden  wrote  to  Sumner  (Morley's  Cobden, 
II,  408)  :  "  You  must  not  forget  that  we  have  been  the  only  obstacle  to 
what  would  have  been  almost  a  European  recognition  of  the  South." 

Then,  after  the  emancipation  proclamation  had  put  the  North  in  the 
true  light  on  the  matter  of  slavery,  English  opposition  was  hushed. 
English  workingmen  thronged  great  public  meetings  to  voice  loud  enthu- 


614  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

siasm  for  the  Union,  and  Cobden  wrote  jubilantly  that  those  meetings  had 
"closed  the  mouths  of  those  who  had  been  advocating  the  side  of  the 
South.  And  I  write  now  to  assure  you  that  any  unfriendly  act,  no  matter 
which  of  our  aristocratic  parties  is  in  power,  is  not  to  be  apprehended. 
...  A  spirit  would  be  instantly  aroused  which  would  drive  that  govern- 
ment from  power  "  (February  13,  1863)  .* 

^79.  Personal  Liberty.  —  After  the  war  was  well  under  way, 
the  Democrats  who  favored  its  prosecution  (  War  Democrats) 
generally  united  with  the  Republicans  in  a  "  Union  Party." 
The  Peace  Democrats,  opponents  of  the  War,  were  commonly 
known  as  "  Copperheads."  Some  of  them  believed  that  the 
Union  could  not  be  restored  by  arms  ;  some  did  not  wish  it 
restored.  These  opponents  varied  all  the  way  from  high- 
minded  gentlemen,  like  Governor  Seymour  of  New  York  or 
Robert  C.  Winthrop  of  Massachusetts,  who  criticized  the  tend- 
ency of  the  war  government  to  overthrow  private  liberty,  to 
real  traitors  who  conspired  to  liberate  Southern  prisoners  in 
the  North  and  attack  the  Northern  cities.  ,  This  last  class,  how- 
ever, was  probably  small  in  number  at  any  time,  though  at  the 
moment,  such  designs  were  imputed  by  the  Unionists  to  all  the 
members  of  an  extensive  secret  organization  in  Ohio  and 
Indiana  known  as  the  "  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle." 

From  the  beginning,  the  government  committed  many  in- 
vasions of  personal  liberty,  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution 
or  by  the  spirit  of  our  institutions ;  and  this  not  merely  near 
the  theater  of  war,  but  all  over  the  North.     By  executive  order, 

1  The  House  of  Lords,  says  Mr.  Rhodes,  was  almost  unanimously  for  the 
South,  as  was  a  majority  of  the  Commons,  —  elected  in  that  day  by  about  a 
million  voters.  But  there  were  six  million  other  Englishmen  not  yet  enfran- 
chised ;  and  "  nearly  all  of  these,  who  had  any  opinion  whatever,  sympathized 
with  the  North ;  and  their  hearty  manifestations  of  friendship  came  at  the 
most  gloomy  period  of  the  war,  when  patriots  at  home  and  friends  abroad 
despaired.  .  .  .  The  Great  Britain  of  to-day  .  .  .  would  have  been  with  the 
North."  This  greatest  American  authority  agrees  that  even  the  England  of 
that  day  "  was  the  one  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the  recognition  of  the  Con- 
federacy by  France  and  other  European  nations  "  {History,  IV,  388).  On  the 
whole  topic  the  interested  student  cannot  do  better  than  to  read  Rhodes,  III, 
417-129,  502-538,  and  IV,  76-92,  and  (especially)  337-394. 


PERSONAL  LIBERTY  615 

the  President  suspended  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ; 1  and  thou- 
sands of  men  were  imprisoned  by  military  order,  some- 
times without  trial,  or  even  a  specific  charge ;  and  others  were 
punished  by  military  courts,  on  the  charge  of  "  discouraging 
enlistments  "  or  "  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy."  Such 
prisoners  included  mayors,  editors,  judges,  members  of  legis- 
latures. In  some  cases,  prisoners,  while  in  durance,  were  chosen 
by  their  neighbors  to  legislature  or  to  Congress  —  as  a  proof  of 
confidence  in  them  and  of  resentment  at  the  high-handed  prac- 
tice of  the  government. 

Mr.  Rhodes'  judgment  is  that  this  policy  of  the  government  was  "futile 
for  good  .  .  .  inexpedient,  unnecessary,  and  wrong"  ;  and  that  the  sins 
against  which  it  was  aimed  might  have  been  controlled  adequately  by  the 
ordinary  process  of  law.  The  worst  excesses  were  due  to  the  "  capricious- 
ness  of  power"  in  the  hands  of  Seward  and  especially  of  Stanton,  the 
patriotic  but  arbitrary  and  irritable  Secretary  of  War;  and  they  were 
aggravated  by  the  insolence  of  subordinates  and  the  cruelty  and  tyranny 
of  some  brutal  provost  marshals,  who  found  it  safer  to  gratify  their  pas- 
sions so  than  at  the  front,  and  who  sometimes  used  their  power  to  pay  off 
personal  grudges. 

Final  responsibility,  of  course,  has  to  rest  upon  the  President.  At 
the  time,  he  was  reviled  by  opponents  as  "Abraham  the  First." 
He  did  "wield  greater  power  than  any  single  Englishman  since  Crom- 
well," as  James  Bryce  has  said  ;  and  this  phase  of  the  war  is  perhaps 
the  least  glorious  to  his  fame.  Military  commissions  were  permitted  to 
define  "public  enemies"  so  as  to  include  the  man  "who  overrates  the 
success  ...  of  our  adversaries,"  or  "seeks  false  causes  of  complaint 
against  the  officers  of  the  government,"  or  "  inflames  party  spirit  among  our- 
selves." And,  in  the  eye  of  the  President's  agents,  as  Dr.  Dunning 
says,  such  doctrine  made  the  line  between  political  opposition  to  the 
President  and  treason  extremely  hazy.2    Neither  the  despotic  govern- 

!The  power  to  suspend  the  great  writ,  "  when  public  safety  requires,"  in 
cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  is  named  among  the  powers  of  Congress,  not  of 
the  President.  Months  later,  Congress  "  authorized  "  the  President  to  suspend 
the  writ  at  his  discretion ;  but  a  later  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  (below) 
declared  this  legislation  unconstitutional. 

2  Dunning's  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction,  43-44. 


616  THE   CIVIL  WAR 

ment  in  England  during  the  French  Revolutionary  days,  nor  the  govern- 
ment of  Jefferson  Davis,  ventured  so  bluntly  to  ignore  the  constitutional 
rights  of  citizens.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  just  Lincoln's  moderation 
and  mercy  and  good  sense  which  made  the  mass  of  the  people  willing  to 
trust  him  with  these  enormous  powers.  Men  knew  that  some  mistakes 
must  be  made  in  those  cruel  days  ;  but  they  felt  rightly  that  their  lib- 
erties were  fundamentally  safe  in  the  hands  of  "Honest  Abe." 

Two  cases  were  of  particular  importance. 

a.  Vallandigham,  a  leader  of  the  extreme  Peace  Democrats,  was  a 
candidate  for  nomination  for  the  governorship  of  Ohio.  After  a  speech 
at  a  public  meeting,  he  was  arrested  by  order  of  General  Burnside,  tried 
by  a  military  commission,  on  the  charge  of  "  publicly  expressing,  in  viola- 
tion of  general  orders,  .  .  .  sympathy  for  those  in  arms  against  .  .  . 
the  United  States  .  .  .  with  the  purpose  of  weakening  the  government," 
and  was  condemned  to  close  imprisonment  during  the  war  (May  16,  1862). 
Lincoln  felt  that  he  could  not  well  disavow  such  action  ;  but  he  turned 
the  matter  into  a  huge,  if  somewhat  cruel  joke,  by  "commuting"  the 
sentence,  —  ordering  instead  that  Vallandigham  should  be  sent  through 
the  Union  lines,  "  to  his  friends  "  in  the  Confederacy.  From  this  banish- 
ment Vallandigham  ventured  back,  soon  after,  to  resume  political  activ- 
ity ;  *and  his  reappearance  was  wisely  ignored  by  the  government. 

b.  In  October,  1864,  Dr.  Milligan  and  two  associates  were  arrested  by 
military  order,  tried  by  court  martial,  and  condemned  to  death  by  hang- 
ing, on  charges  similar  to  those  in  the  Vallandigham  case.  President 
Lincoln,  however,  would  not  order  the  execution, — though  he  did  not 
release  the  prisoners.  President  Johnson,  on  accession  (§  383),  fixed  a 
date  for  the  hanging.  Governor  Morton  of  Indiana,  one  of  the  greatest 
of  the  War  Governors,  at  the  suggestion  of  Justice  David  Davis  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  prevailed  on  the  President  finally  to 
commute  the  sentence  (three  hours  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  hanging) 
to  imprisonment  for  life.  The  war  being  now  over,  Milligan  at  last  secured 
a  hearing  from  the  Supreme  Court 1  on  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  A  year  and  a  half  later  (December,  1866) ,  the  Court  unanimously 
ordered  Milligan  set  free,  and,  five  to  four,  declared  that  Congress  had  no 
authority  under  the  Constitution,  to  authorize  any  such  military  commis- 
sions in  regions  where  the  civil  courts  were  open. 

1  During  the  war,  the  Court  evaded  all  calls  to  interfere  by  alleging  that  the 
laws  provided  no  form  of  appeal  from  military  courts.  Read  Hart's  Chase, 
346,  and,  on  the  whole  subject  of  military  government  in  the  North,  see 
Rhodes'  History,  III,  IV,  V,  in  table  of  contents. 


THE   COST  617 

This  decision  was  in  line  with  the  whole  tradition  of  the  English-speak- 
ing people  ;  but  it  was  met,  even  at  that  late  day,  by  a  storm  of  vehement 
public  criticism,  and  the  narrow  majority  of  the  court  indicates  how 
unstable  civil  liberty  might  again  become  in  case  of  a  great  war. 

380.  Cost.  —  The  war  cost  more  than  700,000  lives,  —  the 
loss  nearly  even  between  North  and  South.  Says  Professor 
Ross,  "  The  blood  of  the  nation  was  lastingly  impoverished  by 
that  awful  hemorrhage  "  {Foundations  of  Sociology).  As  many 
men  more  had  their  lives  sadly  shortened  or  rendered  mis- 
erable by  disease  or  wounds.  Other  darkened  lives,  in  homes 
from  which  the  light  had  gone  out,  cannot  be  computed.  Nor 
can  we  count  the  heaviest  cost  of  all,  the  lowering  of  moral 
tone,  and  the  habits  of  vice,  that  came  from  life  in  camp  and 
barracks.  In  money,  the  war  cost  the  Union  government 
about  three  and  a  half  billions,  nearly  three  billions  of  which 
remained  as  a  huge  national  debt  to  plague  the  next  genera- 
tion. The  destruction  of  property,  principally  in  the  South, 
amounted  to  nearly  as  much  more. 

Still,  this  expenditure  of  blood  and  treasure  was  well  worth 
while.  The  war  struck  shackles  from  four  million  men.  It 
ended  forever  the  ideas  of  constitutional  nullification  and  of 
peaceful  secession.  It  decided  beyond  further  appeal,  that  the 
United  States  is  a  Nation,  not  a  confederacy.  It  was  the  means 
whereby  the  more  progressive  portion  of  the  country  had  to  force 
its  advanced  political  thought  and  its  better  labor  system  upon  the 
iveaker,  stationary  portion.  It  prevented  the  break-up  of  the 
country  into  squabbling  communities,  to  be  engaged  in  inces- 
sant bickerings  over  trade  and  boundaries,  and  it  preserved  the 
vast  breadth  of  the  continent  for  peace.  It  demonstrated  to 
skeptical  European  aristocracies  that  the  great  Republic  was 
not  "a  bubble,"  as  some  of  them  had  hastened  to  exult  in  1861, 
but  "  the  most  solid  fact  in  history." 1 

One  part  of  the  cost  is  yet  to  be  counted.  April  14,  1865, 
while  the  North  was  still  blazing  with  illuminations  and  thrill- 

^obden,  in  a  congratulatory  letter  to  Sumner. 


618  RECONSTRUCTION 

ing  with  rejoicings  over  the  capture  of  Lee's  army  and  the  end 
of  the  war,  it  was  plunged  into  intense  gloom  by  the  assassina- 
tion of  Lincoln.  The  great  President  was  murdered  by  a  crazed 
actor,  a  sympathizer  of  the  South.  No  man  was  left  to  stand 
between  North  and  South  as  mediator,  and  to  bind  up  the 
wounds  of  the  Nation  with  great-hearted  pity  and  all-sufficing 
influence  as  Lincoln  could  have  done.  His  death  was  an  in- 
comparable loss  to  the  South.  It  added  fierce  flame  to  the 
spirit  of  vengeance  at  the  North,  and  it  explains  in  great  part 
the  blunders  and  sins  of  the  dominant  party  in  the  "  Recon- 
struction "  that  followed  the  war. 

For  Further  Reading.  —  The  best  military  story  in  brief  form  is  Dodge's 
Bird's-eye  View  of  the  Civil  War.  Further  details  are  given  in  an  in- 
teresting series  of  articles,  "  Campaigns  of  the  Civil  War,"  written  by- 
generals  of  both  armies,  in  the  Century,  VII-XIII.  On  other  phases  of 
the  period,  besides  the  references  in  notes  above,  the  student  may  consult 
Rhodes'  History ;  Hart's  Chase  ("American  Statesmen"  series)  ;  Morse's 
Lincoln  (ib.)  ;  Schwab's  Confederate  States  of  America ;  Stephens' 
War  between  the  States  ;  Bancroft's  Seward  ("American  Statesmen")  ; 
Davis'  Bise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government ;  Lee's  General  Lee. 

Much  source  material  is  given  in  Hart's  Contemporaries,  IV,  and  Mac 
Donald's  Select  Statutes. 

Illustrative  material  is  abundant.  Special  mention  is  due  to  Eggleston's 
BebeVs  Becollections,  and  American  War  Ballads ;  Gary's  BebeVs  Becol- 
lections  ;  T.N.  Page's  Among  the  Camps,  and  Burial  of the  Guns;  Harold 
Frederic's  Copperhead ;  L.  M.  Alcott's  Hospital  Sketches;  Avary's  A 
Viriginia  Girl  in  the  Civil  War. 

II.     RECONSTRUCTION 

381.  Problems,  North  and  South.  —  Peace  brought  new  prob- 
lems. So  far  as  the  North  was  alone  concerned,  the  most  im- 
mediate ones  were  met  satisfactorily.  The  million  men  under 
arms  were  paid  off  and  sent  to  their  homes  at  government  ex- 
pense, at  the  rate  of  one  or  two  hundred  thousand  a  month, 
until,  at  the  end  of  a  year,  only  some  fifty  thousand  remained 
to  garrison  the  conquered  South.  The  "  old  soldiers  "  for  the 
most  part  found  honorable  and  useful  places  in  industry  with 


SOUTHERN  PROBLEMS  619 

marvelous  rapidity  and  with  hardly  a  ripple  upon  the  usual 
order, — one  of  the  notable  phenomena  of  history.1  Internal 
taxes  were  promptly  reduced  or  abolished ;  and  after  1869,  the 
immense  national  debt  was  cut  down  steadily  and  resolutely,  — 
so  that  by  1890,  including  the  paper  money,  it  amounted  to 
less  than  half  the  amount  of  twenty  years  before. 

For  the  wrecked  South,  the  problems  were  infinitely  more 
difficult  —  and  more  pressing.  The  ex-Confederate  soldiers 
toiled  homeward  painfully,  mostly  on  foot,  from  Northern 
prison  camps  and  from  surrendered  armies.  In  some  districts, 
remote  from  the  march  of  the  Union  armies,  there  was  still 
abundance  of  food,  with  the  Negroes  at  work  in  the  fields ;  but 
over  wide  areas  the  returned  soldier  found  his  home  in  ashes, 
his  stock  carried  off,  his  family  scattered,  the  labor  system 
utterly  gone.  Many  an  aristocrat,  who  in  April  had  ruled  a 
veteran  regiment,  in  July  was  hunting  desperately  for  a  mule,2 
that  he  might  plow  an  acre  or  two,  to  raise  food  against  the 
starvation  of  his  delicately  nurtured  family.  The  destruction 
of  bridges  and  tearing  up  of  railroads  left  the  various  districts 
isolated  and  self-dependent ;  and  economic  life  had  to  be  built 
up  again  from  primitive  conditions.  No  praise  is  too  great  for 
the  quiet  heroism  with  which  the  men  of  the  South  set  them- 
selves to  this  immediate  and  unaccustomed  task. 

•  Before  the  end  of  the  war,  the  Negroes  along  the  lines  of  Northern  in- 
vasion had  begun  to  flock  to  the  Federal  camps ;  and,  in  March,  1865, 
Congress  had  found  it  necessary  to  establish  a  "  Freedman's  Bureau,"  — 
a  military  organization,  to  feed  these  helpless  multitudes,  to  start  schools 
for  them,  and  to  stand  to  them  in  the  place  of  guardian.  Despite  the  best 
efforts  of  the  noble  men  at  the  head  of  this  organization,  and  notwith- 
standing the  great  services  it  did  render,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  ex- 


1  Once  more,  "free  land"  helped  us  solve  a  tremendous  problem.  Thou- 
sands upon  thousands  of  ex-soldiers,  who  found  no  immediate  opening  in 
their  old  homes,  became  "  homesteaders  "  in  the  West. 

2  At  Lee's  surrender,  General  Grant,  with  characteristic  good  sense  and 
generosity,  had  told  the  men  to  keep  their  horses,  which,  said  he,  they  would 
need  for  the  spring  work.  Tbjs  practice,  followed  by  other  Union  com- 
manders, lightened  in  some  sligBl  degree  the  suffering  of  the  South. 


620  RECONSTRUCTION 

slaves  drifted  aimlessly  about  the  country  for  months,  expecting  soon  a 
division  of  property  which  should  give  each  one  at  least  "  forty  acres  and 
a  mule."  Deprived  of  their  usual  order  of  life,  this  unhappy  population 
wasted  away  in  disease  and  want.  After  Christmas  week,  they  began  to 
recover  from  the  universal  delusion  of  a  coming  distribution  of  property, 
and  thereafter  they  slowly  returned  to  work  ;  but  the  habits  of  unaccus- 
tomed liberty  to  which  they  had  been  exposed  led  thereafter  to  unprece- 
dented violence  and  crime. 

To  rebuild  the  industrial  organization,  beyond  providing  against  im- 
mediate starvation,  was  a  work  not  for  individuals,  but  for  organized 
political  societies.  But  political  organization  was  more  completely 
wrecked  even  than  the  industrial  system  ;  and,  with  a  civilized  people, 
the  first  need  was  to  restore  it.  The  military  government  preserved  order 
in  the  South  ;  but  civil  liberties  were  in  doubt,  and  civil  government  was 
lacking. 

Thus  the  problems  for  the  South  were  (i)  to  find  food  for  its  people  ; 
(2)  to  protect  and  control  and  uplift  the  Negro  and  find  him  a  place 
again  in  the  industrial  system ;  (3)  to  build  new  State  governments ; 
and  (4)  to  restore  these  reconstructed  States  to  their  old  relation  to  the 
Union.  Unfortunately,  in  practice,  the  second  and  third  of  these  problems 
had  to  depend  upon  the  fourth;  and  this  problem  the  victorious  North, 
after  the  assassination  of  Lincoln  and  the  return  of  its  emaciated  pris- 
oners, was  in  no  mood  to  solve  in  the  best  way.  It  followed  that  for 
twelve  years  (1865-1877),  though  war  had  ceased,  a  "state  of  war" 
continued,  —  the  South  garrisoned  by  Federal  troops  and,  much  of  it, 
ruled  by  conquering  generals,  as  though  it  were  a  hostile  country. 

382.  Lincoln  and  Reconstruction,  in  the  War. — At  the  open- 
ing of  the  war,  the  Republican  party  held  that  the  States  did 
not  go  out  of  the  Union,  and  that  their  normal  relations  to  the 
Union  were  merely  interrupted  temporarily  by  illegal  "  com- 
binations of  individuals."  President  Lincoln  kept  this  view 
consistently  throughout;  and  under  it,  even  while  the  war 
was  in  progress,  he  had  tried  to  begin  the  political  reconstruc- 
tion of  such  States  as  had  been  occupied  by  the  Union  armies. 
"Louisiana,"  said  he,  in  1862,  "has  nothing  to  do  now  but  to 
take  her  place  in  the  Union  as  it  was  —  barring  the  broken 
eggs."     In  1863  he  issued  a  proclamation  of  amnesty  for  all 


AND  LINCOLN  621 

Southerners  (with  a  few  specified  exceptions)  who  would  take 
an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Union  ;  and  he  promised  to  recog- 
nize in  any  seceding  State  a  civil  government  set  up  by  such 
persons,  —  they  being  not  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  number 
of  voters  of  1860. 

But  the  more  radical  wing  of  the  Republicans  began  to  fear 
that  the  "  rebels/'  getting  back  so  easily  into  the  Union,  might 
get  control  of  the  Federal  government  and  undo  the  results  of 
the  war.1  Jealousy,  too,  developed  as  to  whether  President  or 
Congress  should  manage  the  work  of  reconstruction.  Thus, 
in  July,  1864,  the  "  Davis- Wade  bill "  was  passed,  (1)  to  make 
the  process  of  reconstruction  more  difficult,  and  (2)  to  place 
control  of  it  in  Congress.  President  Lincoln  killed  this  bill  by 
a  pocket  veto,  and  appealed  to  the  country  with  one  of  his 
persuasive  proclamations ;  and  during  the  adjournment  of  Con- 
gress, upon  his  own  responsibility,  he  "  recognized  "  the  "  ten- 
per-cent  governments"  which  he  had  helped  to  organize,  in 
Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  Tennessee.  Later,  like  action  was 
taken  for  Virginia.  Representatives  and  Senators  from  these 
States  had  not  been  admitted  by  Congress  at  Lincoln's  death ; 
but  three  days  before  that  calamity,  the  President,  in  a  public 
address,  repeated  his  views  as  to  reconstruction. 

383.  Presidential  Reconstruction  after  the  War.  —  The  new 
President,  Andrew  Johnson,  had  been  a  War  Democrat  and  a 
Union  man  in  Tennessee,  where  he  had  served  efficiently  as 
military  governor  in  1863-1864.  He  possessed  great  native 
force  of  character,  of  a  rather  pugnacious  order,  and  a  rugged 
integrity ;  and,  even  in  the  aristocratic  South  before  the  war, 
he  had  passed  from  a  tailor's  bench  to  the  highest  offices  of 
his  State  (cf .  §  289).  He  was,  however,  sadly  lacking  in  tact 
and  good  taste,  and  in  generosity  toward  opponents,  and  he 
was  possessed  by  a  fatal  itch  for  boastful  and  abusive  public 
speech. 


1  The  fear  long  continued  that  in  Congress  they  might  repudiate  the  National 
debt,  or  perhaps  assume  the  war  debt  of  the  Confederacy. 


622  RECONSTRUCTION 

Julian,  one  of  the  radical  Republican  Congressmen,  tells  us  {Political 
Becollections,  255)  that  at  Lincoln's  death,  "while  everybody  was  shocked, 
the  feeling  was  nearly  universal  [among  the  radicals  in  Washington] 
that  the  accession  of  Johnson  would  prove  a  Godsend  to  the  country. ' ' 
Two  days  later,  Johnson  received  a  committee  of  these  radical  politicians 
with  mutual  joy.  Senator  Wade  greeted  him:  "  Johnson,  we  have  faith 
in  you.  By  the  gods,  there  will  be  no  trouble  now  in  running  the  gov- 
ernment." And  the  President  rejoined  with  the  declaration  :  "  Treason 
is  a  crime,  and  crime  must  be  punished.  Treason  must  be  made  infamous, 
and  traitors  must  be  impoverished." 

For  some  weeks  the  new  President  seemed  to  keep  this 
dangerous  temper  toward  the  South.  He  was  ardent  for  the 
trial,  by  court  martial,  of  Confederate  leaders  like  Jefferson 
Davis  and  Robert  E.  Lee,  both  of  whom  he  accused,  absurdly, 
of  complicity  in  Lincoln's  murder,  and  who,  he  urged,  should 
be  hung  for  treason  anyway.  Happily  this  scheme  fell  before 
the  more  conservative  temper  of  the  mass  of  the  North  and  the 
attitude  of  the  courts.  And  soon  Johnson  himself  disappointed 
his  radical  associates  by  taking  up  the  reconstruction  policy  just 
where  his  predecessor  left  it  —  but  with  infinitely  less  chance  of 
success.  Before  Congress  met,  in  December,  he  had  brought 
about  the  organization  of  State  governments  in  the  remaining 
seven  States  of  the  defunct  Confederacy,  essentially  upon 
Lincoln's  plan. 

The  process  was  as  follows:  (1)  The  appointed  "  governor  "  in  each 
State  arranged  for  registration  of  voters  under  the  franchise  laws  in  force 
in  1860,  except  for  the  exclusion  of  certain  classes  of  the  higher  Confeder- 
ate officials,  which  classes  were  made  somewhat  larger  by  Johnson  than 
they  had  been  by  Lincoln.  (2)  A  convention,  chosen  by  these  voters, 
repealed  the  ordinance  of  secession,  repudiated  any  share  in  the  Confed- 
erate war  debt,  and  adopted  a  constitution.  (3)  Under  this  constitution, 
the  people  chose  a  legislature  and  a  new  governor.  (4)  The  legislature 
was  required,  before  the  State  government  was  recognized  by  the  Presi- 
dent, to  ratify  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  National  Constitution.1 
Thereupon  President  Johnson  proclaimed  civil  government  fully  restored  ; 
the  legislatures  proceeded  to  enact  much  legislation  to  restore  society  and 

1  Mississippi  did  not  take  the  last  step. 


AND  ANDREW  JOHNSON  623 

industry ,'  and  Senators  and  Representatives  were  chosen  for  Congress  — 
who,  however,  were  never  to  take  their  seats  (§  385). 

384.  Alarm  at  the  North.  —  The  North  was  taking  alarm.  In 
the  "  reconstructed  "  States,  the  governors  and  newly  chosen 
Representatives  were  ex-Confederate  generals.  Such  men  were 
the  only  natural  leaders  of  their  people ;  but  the  North  could 
not  understand  this  fact.  Still  less  did  it  believe  that  these 
"  rebel  brigadiers  "  had  accepted  the  result  of  the  war  in  good 
faith  —  though  now  all  agree  that  such  was  the  case. 

Moreover,  cause  for  irritation  was  found  in  the  attitude  of 
the  reconstructed  legislatures  toward  the  freedmen.  Some 
States  forbade  Negroes  to  carry  weapons  without  special 
license,  or  to  bear  witness  in  court  against  Whites,  or  to  own 
land ;  while  in  at  least  three  States,  a  magistrate  might  arrest 
an  idle  Negro  as  a  vagraut,  fine  him,  and  sell  him  into  service 
to  work  out  the  fine.  A  like  penalty  was  often  imposed  for 
petty  larceny,  and  for  other  minor  offenses;  and  a  common 
feature  of  these  "  Black  Codes  "  was  the  provision  that  a  court 
might  "  apprentice "  Negro  minors  (who  had  no  family  sup- 
port) to  White  employers,  preferably  their  former  masters. 
To  the  Southerner,  most  of  this  legislation  seemed  inevitable ; 
and,  except  for  its  most  extreme  instances,  it  is  approved  to-day 
by  Northern  scholars.1  But  at  the  moment  it  seemed  to  the 
inflamed  and  uninstructed  imagination  of  the  North  a  deliber- 
ate and  defiant  attempt  to  reenslave  "  persons  of  color." 
Northern  opinion,  therefore,  demanded  that  this  Presidential 
"  reconstruction  "  should  be  undone,  until  the  Southern  States 


1  "  This  legislation,  far  from  embodying  any  spirit  of  defiance  towards  the 
North  .  .  .  was  in  the  main  a  conscientious  and  straightforward  attempt  to 
bring  some  sort  of  order  out  of  the  social  and  economic  chaos."  —  Dunning, 
Reconstruction,  Political  and  Economic  ("  American  Nation  "  series),  57-58. 
"The  trend  of  legislation  .  .  .  was  distinctly  favorable  to  the  Negro."  — 
Rhodes,  History,  VI,  27.  Cf.  ib-,  23-28,  for  illustrations,  and  for  the  judgment 
that  the  Northern  opinion  and  the  subsequent  action  of  Congress  were  based 
upon  "  specious  tales  "  and  untrustworthy  evidence.  Cf .  also  the  context  of 
the  reference  above  for  Professor  Dunning's  full  judgment. 


624  RECONSTRUCTION 

should  undo  such  legislation  and  should  grant  the  franchise  to 
the  Blacks,  —  to  enable  those  wards  of  the  nation  to  protect 
themselves. 

Lincoln  had  advised  his  reconstructed  governments  that  they  would  do 
well  to  give  the  franchise  to  Negroes  who  had  fought  for  the  Union  or 
who  could  pass  an  educational  test ;  and  President  Johnson  repeatedly 
urged  a  like  policy.  But  no  one  of  the  reconstructed  legislatures  paid 
attention  to  such  counsel.  For  this  there  is  little  wonder  when  we  re- 
member that  only  six  Northern  States  allowed  the  Negro  to  vote  at  this 
time,  one  of  these  with  limitations  not  imposed  upon  Whites,  and  that 
in  this  same  year  (1865),  State  conventions  in  Wisconsin,  Connecticut, 
and  Minnesota  refused  the  privilege.  In  1867-1868,  Minnesota,  Michigan, 
Ohio,  and  Kansas  rejected,  by  popular  vote,  constitutional  amendments 
providing  for  Negro  suffrage. 

385.  Congressional  Reconstruction.  —  When  Congress  met  in 
December,  1865,  the  Radicals  had  fully  decided  to  ignore  the 
President's  work,  and  themselves  to  reconstruct  the  South 
over  again.  To  suit  this  plan,  the  leaders  devised  new  politi- 
cal theories.  The  Southern  States,  by  attempting  secession, 
had  "committed  State-suicide"  and  reverted  to  the  position 
of  Territories,  subject  of  course  to  Congressional  regulation. 
This  was  the  theory  put  forward  by  Charles  Sumner  in  the 
Senate.  Thaddeus  Stevens  insisted  upon  the  more  extreme 
view  that  the  South  was  a  "  conquered  province,"  so  that  its 
people  had  no  claim  even  to  civil  rights.  Sumner  was  an  un- 
selfish idealist,  but  unpractical  and  bigoted,  with  the  one  idea 
of  doing  justice  to  the  Negro.  Stevens  was  an  unscrupulous 
politician  and  a  vindictive  partisan,  determined  to  entrench 
Republican  rule  by  Negro  majorities  in  Southern  States,  and 
not  averse  incidentally  .to  punishing  "  rebels."  The  spirit  of 
reckless  retribution  which  stained  the  National  legislation  of 
the  next  months  was  due  mainly  to  his  harsh  influence ;  but, 
more  and  more,  as  the  contest  progressed,  the  Republican 
majority  in  Congress  was  actuated,  aside  from  the  leading 
motives  just  indicated,  by  a  desire  also  to  humiliate  the 
President. 


AND  CONGRESS  625 

At  the  first  roll  call  of  the  new  Congress,  the  clerk,  under 
Stevens'  direction,  omitted  the  reconstructed  States,  so  that 
their  representatives  were  not  recognized.  Later,  the  question 
of  the  readmission  of  those  States  to  the  Union  was  referred 
to  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  Houses,  —  which  then  held 
the  matter  skillfully  in  abeyance.  Meantime,  steps  were  taken 
to  secure  the  Negro  against  Southern  oppression.  The  Freed- 
man's  Bureau  was  continued,  with  authority  to  override  State 
legislation  ;  and  a  Civil  Rights  Bill  placed  the  civil  equality 
of  the  Negro  directly  under  the  protection  of  the  Federal 
courts  —  rather  than  of  the  State  courts.  Both  these  measures 
were  passed  over  the  President's  veto,  and  the  breach  between 
legislature  and  executive  widened  daily. 

In  June,  1866,  the  principle  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  was 
made  more  secure  by  the  adoption  in  Congress  of  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  This  measure  also  held  out  to  the  South 
an  inducement  to  give  the  suffrage  to  the  Negro  —  in  the  pro- 
vision that  if  a  State  denied  the  suffrage  to  any  citizens,  its 
representation  in  Congress  might  be  correspondingly  reduced ; 
and  it  disqualified  from  office  large  classes  of  leading  South- 
erners, such  as  made  up  the  reconstructed  governments.  This 
last  provision  alone  was  sufficient  to  secure  a  prompt  rejection 
of  the  Amendment  by  Southern  legislatures, — the  members 
refusing  to  be  themselves  the  instruments  of  their  own  political 
degradation.  Then  the  Radicals  in  Congress  announced  their 
program  :  Congress  should  not  admit  Representatives  from  any 
State  until  it  did  ratify  the  Amendment.  On  this  issue  they 
won  a  sweeping  victory  over  the  President  in  the  fall  election 
(1866),  and  then  hastened  to  complete  their  work.  The  Pres- 
ident's power  of  dismissing  insubordinate  officials  was  taken 
away  by  an  insulting  "Tenure  of  Office"  Act,  and  there  was 
k  enacted  (beginning  March  2,  1867)  a  series  of  atrocious  Recon- 
struction Acts. 

These  Acts  divided  the  old  Confederacy  (except  Tennessee,  which  had 
ratified  the  Amendment)  into  five  military  districts.  Each  district  was 
placed  under  an  army  general,  who,  in  practice,  set  aside  at  will  the  laws 

/ 


626  RECONSTRUCTION 

of  the  existing  Southern  legislatures,  overruled  the  decisions  of  courts 
by  military  commissions,1  and  even  superseded  the  will  of  the  new  State 
conventions  which  they  themselves  called.  They  appointed  municipal 
authorities,  regulated  collection  of  debts,  decreed  (for  instance)  the  non- 
manufacture  of  whisky,  and  aimed  in  general  to  exercise  a  minute 
paternal  despotism. 

This  situation  was  to  continue  until  the  following  process  should  be 
complete  :  (i)  Each  commander  was  to  register  the  voters  in  each  State 
in  his  district,  including  the  Negroes  and  excluding  large  classes  of  ex- 
Confederates.  (2)  State  conventions,  chosen  by  Negro  suffrage,  must 
ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  (3)  adopt  new  State  constitu- 
tions, —  which  must  be  satisfactory  to  Congress  and  which,  in  particular, 
must  provide  for  future  Negro  suffrage.  (4)  These  constitutions  must  then 
be  ratified  by  the  registered  voters.  (5)  A  State  which  complied  with 
these  requirements  might  be  readmitted  to  the  Union  by  Congress.  By 
June  of  1868,  six  more  States  had  been  reconstructed  on  this  basis. 
Virginia,  Mississippi,  Georgia,  and  Texas  preferred  military  rule  for 
three  years  more.  Meantime  Congress  added  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to 
the  requirements  for  readmission,  so  placing  Negro  suffrage  beyond  the 
legal  control  of  the  States  in  the  future. 

386.  Partisan  Intolerance.  —  Annoyed  by  Johnson's  veto  messages, 
Congress  now  determined  to  remove  him  by  impeachment.  Ground  was 
sought  in  his  dismissal  of  Secretary  Stanton  from  office,  contrary,  it 
was  claimed,  to  the  Tenure-of -Office  Act;  but  it  was  shown  promptly 
that  Stanton's  term  had  expired  legally  with  President  Lincoln's  first 
term,  and  that  he  had  never  been  reappointed  and  had  no  claim  to  pro- 
tection under  the  law.  Indeed,  with  all  his  coarseness,  Johnson  had 
administered  his  high  office  with  scrupulous  fidelity  to  the  laws  ;  and  the 
impeachment  necessarily  became  a  frank  attempt  to  depose  him  because 
he  differed  icith  the  majority  of  Congress. 

The  attempt  failed  (May,  1868)  for  want  of  one  vote  to  make  the 
necessary  two  thirds;  but  every  Northern  Senator  who  voted  against 
this  partisan  degradation  of  the  presidency  lost  his  seat  at  the  first  sub- 
sequent election.     The  North  was  even  more  mad  than  Congress.    Julian, 

JIn  contemptuous  defiance  of  the  Supreme  Court's  decision  in  the  Milligan 
Case  a  few  months  before  (Cf.  §§  379  and  391).  The  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States  formally  decided  that  these  officers  had  no  right  to  set  aside 
legislative  acts^-but  Congress  promptly  added  that  power  to  their  functions 

by  a  special'ia'w. 

m0 


IMPEACHMENT  627 

himself  then  one  of  the  Congressional  leaders,  wrote  later:  "It  is  im- 
possible now  to  realize  how  overmastering  was  the  excitement  of  those 
days.  The  exercise  of  calm  judgment  was  simply  out  of  the  question.  .  .  . 
Passion  ruled  the  hour.  .  .  .  The  attempt  to  impeach  was  undoubtedly 
inspired  by  patriotic  motives;  but  the  spirit  of  intolerance  among  Re- 
publicans toward  those  who  differed  with  them  set  all  moderation  and 
common  sense  at  defiance.  Patriotism  and  party  animosity  were  .  .  . 
inextricably  mingled  and  confounded."  * 

A  few  months  later,  the  Republicans  elected  General  Grant  to  the 
Presidency  in  an  enthusiastic  campaign,  by  214  electoral  votes  to  80. 
Still  in  the  popular  vote,  Grant  had  a  majority  of  only  300,000  out  of 
6,000,000.  Part  of  the  Southern  States,  too,  were  still  unreconstructed, 
and  had  no  vote  ;  while  the  others  were  controlled  by  Republican  "car- 
petbaggers" (below).  , 

387.  Carpetbagger  Misgovernment. — Meantime,  the  Recon- 
struction Acts  of  '67  had  been  followed  by  extraordinary- 
anarchy  and  misgovernment  in  the  South.  In  a  few  weeks, 
thousands  of  Northern  adventurers,  drawn  by  scent  of  plun- 
der, had  thronged  thither  to  exploit  the  ignorant  Negro 
vote  and  to  organize  it  as  the  Republican  party.2  These 
"  carpetbaggers,"  joined  by  a  few  even  more  detested  "  scala- 
wags "  (Southern  Whites,  largely  of  the  former  overseer 
class),  with  mobs  of  grossly  ignorant  and  incapable  ex-slaves, 
made  up  the  bulk  of  the  constitutional  conventions  and  the 
subsequent  State  legislatures.  Then,  in  the  words  of  Wood- 
row  Wilson,  "a  carnival  of  public  crime  set  in  under  the 
forms  of  law." 

Irresponsible  or  rascally  legislatures  ruined  the  war-impover- 
ished South  over  again  by  stupendous  taxes,  bearing  mainly  on 
the  property  of  the  disfranchised  Whites.  Then  these  adven- 
turers, with  their  favorites,  stole  or  wasted  the  proceeds.  In 
Mississippi,  a  fifth  of  the  total  area  of  the  State  was  sold  for 
unpaid  taxes.     In  New  Orleans,  the  rate  of  taxation  rose  to 

1  Political  Recollections,  317-318.  The  student  will  do  well  to  read  the 
context. 

i  2A  favorite  device,  when  one  was  needed,  was  to  show  the  illiterate  and 
credulous  Negroes  an  "order"  purporting  to  be  signed  by  General  Grant, 
commanding  them  to  vote  the  Republican  ticket. 


628  RECONSTRUCTION 

6  per  cent,  which  meant  confiscation.  Enormous  State  debts, 
too,  were  piled  up,  to  like  unprofitable  ends.  Crime  against 
individuals  was  rampant ;  and  vicious  Negroes  heaped  indig- 
nities upon  former  masters.  History  fails  to  disclose  a  paral- 
lel to  this  legal  revolution  whereby  a  civilized  society  was 
subjected  to  ruin  and  insult  by  an  ignorant  barbarism  led  by 
brutal  and  greedy  renegades.  The  nearest  approach,  perhaps, 
is  the  open  military  conquest  of  the  Roman  world  of  the  fifth 
century  by  the  Goths  and  Vandals. 

Says  Rhodes  (History,  VI,  35)  :  "  No  law  so  unjust  in  its  policy,  so 
direful  in  its  results,  had  passed  the  American  Congress  since  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act.  .  .  .  Douglas'  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  in 
the  interest  of  slavery,  and  precipitated  the  Civil  War:  Stevens'  Recon- 
struction Acts,  ostensibly  in  the  interests  of  freedom,  were  an  attack  on 
Civilization."  True,  much  of  this  extravagant  legislation  was  generously 
intended  by  many  members  of  the  legislatures,  — to  place  their  States  in 
economic  and  educational  development  alongside  the  more  progressive 
North  at  a  bound.  Even  so,  says  Dunning  (Reconstruction,  208),  "  The 
result  was  legislation  of  incredible  recklessness  executed  with  inconceivable 
corruption  and  fraud."  Perhaps  the  deepest  sting  lay  in  the  fact  that  the 
tax-paying  class  was  mostly  disfranchised,  and  that  it  disapproved  violently 
of  some  of  the  most  unselfish  purposes  to  which  State  funds  were  put  — 
as  in  the  attempts  at  book  education  for  the  Negroes. 

Some  of  the  political  adventurers  from  the  North  were  men  of  personal 
integrity  ;  but  at  the  best  they  were  deeply  obnoxious  to  Southern  Whites 
as  the  leaders  of  Negro  domination.  Many  other  Northerners  of  high  char- 
acter, with  much-needed  capital  and  enterprise,  attempted  to  settle  in  the 
South,  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  opportunities  there  for  economic 
development.  Unhappily  Southern  opinion  confounded  all  "Yankee" 
immigrants  with  the  political  invasion  ;  and  few  of  the  more  desirable  set- 
tlers remained  long,  to  face  social  ostracism. 

388.  Counter-revolution.  —  The  Southern  Whites,  it  should 
have  been  foreseen,  would  soon  overthrow  this  vile  supremacy, 
or  perish.  Peaceful  and  legal  means  for  preserving  White 
civilization  there  w*ere  none ;  open  rebellion  against  Negro 
domination,  while  it  was  supported  by  Federal  bayonets,  was 
equally  impossible;  and  so  the  Whites  had  recourse  to  the 


CARPETBAGGERS 


629 


only  available  methods,  —  which  were  very  deplorable  ones.1 
Secret  societies  intimidated  Negro  majorities  by  mysterious 
warnings  ;  and  midnight  patrols  of  white-robed,  masked  horse- 
men inflicted  many  floggings  and  hangings.  By  the  close  of 
1870,  the  North,  Jn  law,  had  imposed  its  system  of  reconstruc- 
tion successfully  Upon  the  South ;  in  actual  fact,  the  South  was 
rapidly  carrying.out  a  counter-revolution. 

In  the  spring  of- 1867,  there  spread  over  the  South  a  spontaneous  and 
elaborate  organization  of  "  The  Invisible  Empire"  of  Ku-Klux  Klans,  to 
establish  White  supremacy.  The  leaders  hoped  for  a  minimum  of  vio- 
lence ;  but  the  lower-class  Whites  made  the  midnight  patrols  a  means  of 


RECONSTRUCTION 


SS  Loyal  governments  set  up  under  Lincoln 
Loyal  governments  set  up  under  Johnson 


'W.VA.    / 


Upper  date,  Government  recognized  by  Congress 
Lower  date.  Carpet-bagger  government  overthrown 


S-t860         -  i,8B«  ,^/J 


plunder  and  of  gratifying  brutal  passions  and  personal  spite.  Alarmed  at 
this  tendency,  in  1869  the  head  of  the  order  sent  forth  a  command  to  dis- 
band the  organization  ;  but  local  bodies  long  continued  a  lamentable  career 
of  crime.  Congress  passed  Force  Bills  (1870-1871),  to  protect  the  Negro 
in  voting  ;  and  the  presence  of  Federal  troops  at  the  polls,  often  under  the 
control  of  local  Republican  politicians  or  candidates,  was  a  common 
feature  of  elections.  In  1872,  however,  public  feeling  at  the  North  com- 
pelled Congress  to  restore  political  rights  to  the  ex- Confederates  save  for 


1  Says  William  Garrett  Brown  (Lower  South) ,  ' '  Never  before  had  an  end 
so  clearly  worth  fighting  for  been  so  clearly  unattainable  by  any  good  means." 


630  RECONSTRUCTION 

a  small  class  of  some  seven  hundred  in  all ;  and  the  consolidation  of  all 
Southern  Whites  in  one  (Democratic)  party  gave  them  a  majority  in 
most  States  over  the  Negroes.  Thereafter  violence  toward  the  Blacks 
was  rarely  used ;  but  by  threats  of  non-employment,  by  persuasion,  by 
indirect  bribery,  or  by  vague  intimidation,  the  Negro  masses  more  and 
more  were  excluded  from  the  polls.  The  Force  Bills  and  State  legislation 
had  given  the  existing  (Carpetbagger)  governments  authority  to  count 
election  returns  through  their  "  Returning  Boards,"  with  what  Professor 
Dunning  calls  justly  "  extraordinary  facilities  for  fraud. "  These  facilities 
were  used  quite  as  unblushingly  as  was  intimidation  of  the  Negro  by  the 
Southern  Whites.  As  a  result,  several  States  saw  conflicting  governments, 
with  brief  civil  wars.1  The  government  at  Washington  repeatedly  secured 
the  victory  of  the  Carpetbaggers,  by  the  use  of  Federal  troops  ;  but  this 
process  became  increasingly  distasteful  to  President  Grant  and  to  the 
country.  By  1875,  Tennessee,  Virginia,  Georgia,  and  North  Carolina  had 
reverted  to  White  rule  ;  and  the  remaining  Southern  States  did  so  in  the 
election  of  1876,  or  as  an  immediate  result  of  the  settlement  following  that 
remarkable  election  (§  389). 

389.    Presidential  Elections  and  Need  of  "Reform."  —  In  1872, 

the  Republicans  began  to  divide  on  the  question  of  military 
rule  in  the  South.  The  conviction  was  growing  that  the  North 
needed  its  energies,  too,  to  carry  out  essential  reforms  at  home. 
A  "  Liberal  Republican  "  Convention  nominated  Horace  Greeley 
for  the  presidency,  on  a  platform  calling  for  civil-service  reform 
and  for  leaving  the  South  to  solve  its  own  problems.  The 
Democrats  accepted  program  and  candidate ;  but  they  felt  no 
enthusiasm  for  Greeley,  —  a  life-long,  violent  opponent,  —  and 
the  "  regular  "  Republicans  reelected  Grant  triumphantly. 

His  second  term,  however,  proved  a  period  of  humiliation 
for  the  simple-minded  soldier.  His  confidence  was  abused 
basely  by  political  "  friends,"  and  he  showed  himself  a  veritable 
babe  in  their  unscrupulous  hands.  The  public  service  had 
become  honeycombed  with  inefficiency  and  corruption.  In 
1875  extensive  frauds  were  disclosed  whereby  high  officials 
had  permitted  a  "  Whisky  Ring  "  to  cheat  the  government  of 

1  For  the  curious  and  instructive  situation  in  Louisiana  in  1872-1873,  see 
Dunning's  Reconstruction,  217-219. 


NATIONAL  CORRUPTION  631 

millions  of  the  internal  revenue.  Babcock,  the  President's 
private  secretary,  was  deeply  implicated,  and  Grant  showed 
an  ill-advised  eagerness  to  save  his  friend  from  prosecution, 
while  he  allowed  the  Congressional  friends  of  the  convicted 
criminals  to  drive  from  office  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
Be?ijamin  H.  Bristow,  with  all  his  active  assistants,  in  unearth- 
ing the  frauds.  In  1876,  Belknap,  Secretary  of  War,  was 
found  to  have  accepted  bribes,  year  after  year,  for  appoint- 
ments to  office  in  the  matter  of  Indian  affairs  ;  and  of  course 
the  Indian  officials  had  paid  the  bribes  and  enriched  themselves 
by  robbing  the  Indians.  The  Democratic  House  (see  elections 
of  1874,  below)  began  impeachment  proceedings  ;  but  Belknap 
resigned,  and  the  President  permitted  him  to  escape  punish- 
ment by  hastily  accepting  the  resignation.  Grant  had  real 
sympathy  with  a  movement  then  under  way,  for  reform  of  the 
civil  service  (§  415) ;  but  his  most  intimate  friends  and  lieuten- 
ants in  Congress,  like  the  cynical  Senator  Conkling  of  New 
York,  were  bitter  enemies  of  all  reform,  and  in  practice  were 
permitted  to  embarrass  well-meaning  officers  into  resignation. 
In  1876,  the  President  himself  dismissed  his  Postmaster- 
General, —  the  only  remaining  member  of  his  official  family 
who  showed  a  real  interest  in  purifying  the  service. 

Designing  public  criminals  and  such  stock  market  pirates  as  Jay  Gould 
and  James  Fiske  (§  392)  sought  Grant's  company  in  hopes  to  use  him  for 
their  infamous  purposes.  On  a  visit  to  St.  Louis  he  was  lavishly  enter- 
tained by  a  member  of  the  "  Whisky  Ring,"  and  even  accepted  from 
him  a  present  of  a  span  of  fine  horses,  "with  oriental  nonchalance."1 
Low,  however,  as  the  honor  of  the  government  had  fallen,  no  one  imputes 
personal  dishonesty  to  the  President. 

The  long  domination  of  one  political  party,  almost  exempt 
from  effective  criticism,  had  demoralized  Congress,  also.  The 
transcontinental  railway  was  completed  .in  1869,  by  the  aid  of 
enormous  grants  from  the  government.2     The  "  Union  Pacific  " 

1  Rhodes,  VII,  184.    Cf .  context,  and  also  Dunning's  Reconstruction,  281-293. 

2  This  first  transcontinental  road  was  really  built  by  government  funds, 
though  it  was  left  private  property.    The   Nation  was  so  dazzled  by  the 


632  RECONSTRUCTION 

had  been  managed  financially  by  a  corporation  known  as  "The 
Credit  Mobilier."  This  organization  gave  stock,  or  sold  it  far 
below  market  value,  to  members  of  Congress,  to  secure  their 
votes.  In  1873,  an  investigating  committee  reported  absolute 
proof  against  two  Congressmen,  excused  various  others  on  the 
peculiar  ground  (not  creditable  to  their  intellects)  that  they 
had  not  understood  the  intent  of  corruption,  and  left  many 
others,  even  the  Vice  President,  under  grave  suspicion  of  dis- 
graceful motives.  The  public  belief  in  the  corruption  of  Con- 
gress was  emphasized  by  the  "  salary  grab,"  —  a  scandalous 
act  increasing  the  pay  of  members  of  Congress  and  applying 
to  the  past  two  years  (cf.  §  216,  note)  as  well  as  to  the  future. 

The  elections  of  1874  showed  a  popular  revolt  against  these 
conditions  by  giving  the  Democrats  a  large  majority  in  the 
lower  House  of  Congress,  and  by  placing  them  in  control  in 
several  of  the  Northern  State  governments,  even  in  that  of 
Massachusetts.  Then  the  presidential  election  of  1876  closed 
the  long  era  of  political  reconstruction.  The  Democrats  nomi- 
nated Samuel  J.  Tilden  of  New  York  (a  prominent  reformer) 
and  adopted  a  "  reform  "  platform.  The  Republicans  named  as 
their  candidate  Rutherford  B.  Hayes1  of  Ohio,  and  appealed 


romance  of  carrying  an  iron  road  through  nearly  two  thousand  miles  of  desert 
that  it  neglected  its  own  interests  in  the  matter.  The  "Union  Pacific  "  — 
the  main  line  from  Omaha  to  California  —  ran  through  "Territories."  To 
this  company,  Congress  gave  (1)  right  of  way;  (2)  twenty  square  miles  of 
land  along  each  mile  of  road ;  and  (3)  a  loan  of  government  honds  to  the 
amount  of  fifty  millions,  —  which  was  inadequately  secured  and  never  repaid. 
The  road  might  have  been  built  directly  by  the  government  at  less  cost. 

1  James  G.  Blaine,  for  many  years  preceding  1874  the  Speaker  of  the  House, 
and  now  the  leader  of  the  Republican  minority  there,  had  been  a  leading 
candidate.  Shortly  before  the  convention  met,  however,  he  was  accused  of 
complicity  in  the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal.  The  evidence  was  supposed  to  be 
contained  in  letters  from  Blaine  to  a  certain  Mulligan.  On  pretense  of  examin- 
ing these  letters,  Blaine  got  hold  of  them  and  never  permitted  them  to  pass 
again  from  his  hands.  He  read  parts  from  them  in  a  dramatic  "justifica- 
tion "  of  himself  before  the  House;  but  the  "Mulligan  Letters"  made  this 
great  "magnetic"  statesman  thereafter  an  impossible  candidate  for  National 
favor,  and  added  one  more  count  to  the  disgraceful  imputations  under  which 
public  life  in  America  suffered. 


^J&^O*  v-  I  0   V? 


A  e  *f 


ELECTION  OF   1876  633 

chiefly  to  war-time  prejudices  by  a  vigorous  "waving  of  the 
bloody  shirt." 

On  the  morning  after  election,  papers  of  both  parties  gener- 
ally announced  a  Democratic  victory.  That  party  had  safely 
carried  every  "  doubtful "  Northern  State  (New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Connecticut,  and  Indiana),  and,  on  the  face  of  the  re- 
turns, they  had  majorities  in  every  Southern  State.  In  the 
nation  at  large  their  plurality  was  nearly  as  large  as  Grant's 
in  1868 ;  and  they  claimed  204  electoral  votes  to  165. 

But  in  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  South  Carolina,  carpetbagger 
governments,  hedged  by  the  Federal  bayonets,  would  have  the 
canvassing  of  the  returns,  and  they  were  promptly  urged  by 
desperate  Republican  politicians  in  the  North  to  secure  a  favor- 
able count.  These  officials  proved  easily  equal  to  the  emer- 
gency. On  the  alleged  ground  of  fraud  and  of  intimidation  to 
Negro  voters,  they  threw  out  the  vote  of  enough  districts  to 
declare  the  Eepublican  electors  chosen.1  In  Oregon,  one 
of  the  Republican  electors  who  had  been  chosen  proved  to  be 
a  postmaster;  but  the  Constitution  declares  Federal  officials 
ineligible  to  such  position.  In  these  four  States,  two  sets  of 
electors  secured  credentials  from  rival  State  governments  or 
conflicting  officials,  and  double  sets  of  votes  were  sent  to 
Washington.  How  should  it  be  decided  which  sets  were  valid  ? 
The  Constitution  was  unhappily  vague.  Congress  could  not 
easily  agree  upon  a  law,  because  the  lower  House  was  Demo- 
cratic  and   the    Senate    Republican.     Injudicious    leadership 


1  Louisiana  was  perhaps  the  most  trying  case.  There  the  Democratic 
ticket  had  a  majority  of  more  than  0000,  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  carpet- 
bagger officials  freely  employed  "perjury,  forgery,  and  shameless  manipula- 
tion of  the  returns  before  publication"  (Dunning,  Reconstruction,  316,  on 
authority  of  testimony  taken  two  years  later  by  a  Congressional  Committee). 
They  ignored  the  legal  requirements  for  a  Democratic  member  of  the  canvass- 
ing board  and  "  threw  out  returns  on  vague  rumor  and  unsupported  asser- 
tion," while  they  "ignored  technical  irregularities  in  returns  that  favored 
Republicans,  but  used  the  same  defects  as  a  ground  for  rejecting  returns  that 
favored  the  Democrats."  (Dunning,  as  above.)  Such  methods  manufactured 
a  Republican  majority  of  3500. 


I 


634  RECONSTRUCTION 

might  easily  have  plunged  the  Nation  again  into  civil  war, 
which  this  time  would  not  have  been  sectional.  To  elect 
Hayes,  he  had  to  be  given  every  one  of  the  disputed  twenty 
votes.  Any  one  of  them  would  elect  Til  den ;  and  to  reject  both 
sets  of  returns  from  any  State  would  have  the  same  result. 

Finally  (January,  1877),  Congress  created  the  famous  Elec- 
toral Commission  of  fifteen,  to  pass  upon  the  disputes,  —  five 
members  chosen  by  the  House,  five  by  the  Senate,  and  five 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  of  which  last  five  three  were 
Republicans.  After  many  painful  weeks,  by  a  strict  party  vote, 
the  Commission  decided  every  disputed  point  in  favor  of  the 
Republicans.  The  end  was  reached  only  two  days  before  the 
date  for  the  inauguration  of  the  new  President. 

The  "eight  to  seven"  decisions  became  a  by-word  in  politics,  and 
they  are  generally  regarded  as  proof  that  even  members  of  the  Supreme 
Court  were  controlled  by  partisan  bias.  But  this  discreditable  result 
was  more  than  offset  by  the  notable  spectacle  of  half  a  nation  sub- 
mitting quietly,  even  in  time  of  such  intense  party  feeling,  to  a  decision 
that  had  the  form  of  law.  Rarely,  in  any  country,  has  free  government 
been  subjected  to  such  a  strain  —  or  withstood  one  so  triumphantly. 

The  Democratic  moderation  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that, 
in  the  closing  days,  the  leaders  had  arrived  at  a  secret  under- 
standing whereby  the  South  was  to  reap  much  of  the  fruit  of 
victory  after  all.  This  agreement,  too,  was  in  full  sympathy 
with  President  Hayes'  personal  inclination,  though  presum- 
ably he  knew  nothing  of  it  at  the  time.  In  accordance  with 
it,  he  promptly  removed  the  Federal  garrisons.  Then  the 
State  governments  to  which  his  election  had  been  due  immedi- 
ately vanished,  and  were  replaced  by  the  rival  Democratic 
governments.  The  South  was  to  work  out  its  salvation  for 
itself  as  best  it  could. 

390.  The  Courts  and  Reconstruction.  —  Throughout  the  Reconstruc- 
tion period,  Congress  showed  a  high-handed  determination  to  override 
the  courts,  as  it  overrode  the  executive.  The  Supreme  Court  had  been 
increased  to  ten  Justices.     Five  of  these  were  appointed  by  President 


AND  THE  COURTS  635 

Lincoln.  To  prevent  President  Johnson  from  filling  vacancies,  Congress 
reduced  the  number  to  eight,  when  two  of  the  older  justices  died.  From 
1865  to  1870,  the  five  Justices  named  by  Lincoln  made  a  majority  of  the 
Court. 

As  long  as  war  lasted,  the  Court  scrupulously  avoided  interfering  with 
the  President's  extraordinary  war  powers.  But,  in  1866,  by  the  decision 
in  the  Milligan  case  (§  379)  it  sought  to  restore  security  for  personal 
liberty  in  the  future.  The  Radicals  in  Congress  took  alarm.  They  feared 
that  the  Court  would  proceed  to  demolish  their  program  for  military  rule 
in  the  South.  Stevens  raved  in  the  House  :  "  That  decision,  though  in 
terms,  perhaps,  not  as  infamous  as  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  is  yet  far  more 
dangerous"  (January  3,  1867).  Suggestions  were  made  for  abolishing 
the  Court,  and  Stevens  introduced  a  bill  to  require  a  unanimous  vote  of 
the  Court  in  decisions  impairing  the  validity  of  an  Act  of  Congress.  The 
bill  was  not  pressed  to  a  vote,  but,  with  some  other  like  proposals,  was 
held  over  the  Court  as  a  threat. 

Under  such  conditions,  the  Court  grew  cautious.  When  President 
Johnson's  reconstructed  State  governments  appealed  to  -it  for  protection 
against  the  military  rule  set  over  them  by  the  Congressional  Reconstruction 
Acts,  it  refused  to  accept  jurisdiction,  on  the  ground  that  in  "  political 
cases  "  it  had  no  control ;  and  in  1872  (in  White  v.  Hart)  it  pronounced  a 
sweeping  approval  of  Reconstruction:  "  The  action  of  Congress  is  not 
to  be  inquired  into.  The  case  is  clearly  one  in  which  the  judicial  is  bound 
to  follow  the  action  of  the  political  branch  of  the  government." 

Later,  however,  the  Court  sought  to  revive  constitutional  theories 
which  the  war  had  overridden,  describing  the  Nation  as  "an  indestruc- 
tible Union  of  indestructible  States."  The  theory  of  State  sovereignty 
was  dead  ;  but  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights,  essential  to  a  federal  form 
of  government,  was  preserved.  Indeed,  in  the  Slaughterhouse  Cases 
(1883)  the  Court  restored  to  the  States  the  control  over  their  own 
citizens  which  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  had  been  supposed  to  take 
from  them. 

The  stress  of  feeling  following  the  war  showed  that  the  Court  might  be 
subject  to  another  form  of  control.  February  7,  1870,  it  declared  uncon- 
stitutional the  Legal  Tender  Act  of  1862  (§  376)  ,  so  far  as  that  law  made 
the  "  greenbacks"  legal  tender  for  a  debt  contracted  before  the  passage  of 
the  law.  Chief  Justice  Chase,  who,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  had 
devised  the  law,  wrote  the  decision,  and  the  vote  of  the  Court  stood  four 
to  three.  One  of  the  eight  Justices  had  just  died,  and  Congress  had  pro- 
vided also  for  one  additional  member.      President  Grant  now  filled  both 


636  RECONSTRUCTION 

places  —  the  day  this  decision  was  handed  down.  Promptly  a  new  case  of 
like  character  was  brought  before  the  Court.  This  time  the  new  Justices 
voted  with  the  former  minority,  and  the  constitutionality  of  the  law 
was  upheld,  five  to  four.  Loud  complaint  was  made  that  the  President 
and  the  Republican  Senate  had  "packed  the  Court,"  to  secure  this  re- 
versal ; l  and  an  unfortunate  feature  of  the  business  lies  in  the  suspicion  of 
influence  by  great  corporations  whose  long-term  bonds,  about  to  expire, 
would  have  had  to  be  paid  in  gold  under  the  first  decision,  but  which 
they  now  paid  in  the  depreciated  greenbacks  —  saving  millions  for  corpo- 
ration coffers.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  nominations  had  been  set- 
tled upon  before  the  first  decision  had  been  made  public.  At  the  same 
time,  the  opinions  of  the  nominees  upon  the  controverted  point  were 
known ;  and  the  incident  makes  clear  the  dependence  of  the  court, 
in  times  of  great  political  excitement,  upon  the  departments  of  govern- 
ment more  immediately  subject  to  popular  control. 

391.  Excursus:  The  Negro  Problem.  —  The  blunders  of  Re- 
construction, together  with  the  tremendous  natural  difficulties 
of  the  situation,  have  left  America  burdened  with  a  frightful 
race  problem.  On  the  political  side,  Southern  Whites  have 
continued  to  agree  in  the  necessity  for  keeping  the  Negro  from 
the  polls,  —  at  least  wherever  his  vote  might  be  a  real  factor,  — 
and  that  race  remains  (1913)  practically  destitute  of  political  privi- 
lege. To  keep  it  so,  there  has  been  created  and  preserved  for 
a  third  of  a  century  "  the  Solid  South"  in  close  alliance  with  the 
Democratic  party,  without  the  possibility  of  natural  and  whole- 
some division  upon  other  issues. 

In  1890,  the  Republicans  in  Congress  attempted  to  restore  Federal 
supervision  of  congressional  and  presidential  elections,  in  order  to  secure 
the  Negro  vote  again  for  their  party.  The  "Lodge  Force  Bill"  failed, 
partly  from  the  opposition  of  Northern  capital  invested  now  in  Southern 
manufactures  (§  406),  and  partly  from  a  new  political  alliance  between 
the  South  and  the  Western  "  Silver  "  States.  But  the  South  took  warn- 
ing, and  has  attempted  since  to  protect  its  policy  by  the  forms  of  consti- 
tutional right.     The  States  have  adopted  property  qualifications  and 

xEven  the  Chief  Justice  stated  publicly  his  belief  that  the  appointments 
were  designed  expressly  to  secure  a  reversal  of  the  Court. 

On  the  whole  subject  of  the  Court  and  the  War,  the  interested  student 
may  consult  Rhodes,  Dunning,  and  Hart's  Chase,  324-414. 


!THE  NE^/ QUESTION  637 

educational  tests  for  the  franchise;1  and  then  these  qualifications,  in 
practice,  are  invoked  only  against  the  Negro,  not  against  the  illiterate 
White.  Sometimes  the  latter  is  protected  further  by  the  notorious 
"Grandfather  clause,"  expressly  declaring  that  the  restrictions  shall 
not  exclude  any  one  who  could  vote  prior  to  January  i,  1861,  or  who  is 
the  son  or  grandson  of  such  voter.  So  plain  an  evasion  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  might  be  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court ; 
but  great  reluctance  is  felt,  even  at  the  North,  to  interfere  again  in  State 
control  of  the  suffrage. 

One  other  feature  of  the  situation  concerns  the  North  more  directly. 
In  1888,  Kansas  and  South  Carolina  had  the  same  population,  and  ac- 
cordingly the  same  representation  in  Congress  ;  but  South  Carolina  cast 
only  one  third  as  many  votes  as  the  Northern  State.  This  contrast 
has  led  Northern  politicians  sometimes  to  threaten  to  deprive  the  South 
of  part  of  its  power  in  Congress,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  Such  proposals,  however,  have  ended  in  talk,  —  as  have 
the  corresponding  threats  from  the  South  to  repeal  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment. 

On  the  side  of  civil  equality,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
is  even  more  a  dead  letter.  Just  at  the  close  of  Keconstruction 
(in  1875),  Congress  made  a  final  attempt  to  secure  for  Negroes 
the  same  accommodations  as  for  Whites  in  hotels,  railways, 
and  theaters.  In  1883,  however,  the  Supreme  Court  declared 
the  law  unconstitutional  so  far  as  it  overrode  State  authority. 
Accordingly,  the  two  races  in  the  South  live  without  social 
mingling. 

The  Whites  indeed  are  even  more  a  unit  on  the  policy  of 
excluding  the  Negro  from  social  than  from  political  equality. 
The  special  cry  of  the  South  is  "race  integrity."  Inter- 
marriage, it  is  insisted,  shall  not  be  permitted.  Therefore 
there  must  be  no  social  intercourse  on  terms  of  equality.  Many 
noble  leaders  of  the  Negro  race,  too,  like  Booker  Washington 
of  Tuskegee  and  Charles  Moten  of  Hampton  Institute,  desire 

1  Mississippi  led  off  (1890)  by  prescribing  payment  of  a  poll  tax  and  the 
ability  to  read  or  understand  the  Constitution.  Only  37,000  of  the  147,000 
adult  Negro  males  could  read ;  few  of  these  paid  the  tax ;  only  8615  registered 
for  the  next  election. 


638  RECONSTRUCTION 

social  segregation  for  the  present,  —  but  with  a  difference.  To 
the  White,  Negro  segregation  means  Negro  inferiority.  On 
the  other  hand,  these  leaders  are  eager  for  separate  cars  and 
separate  schools  for  their  people  as  a  necessary  step  to  help 
the  Negro  to  "  find  himself " ;  but  they  insist  that  the  "  Jim 
Crow  car  "  shall  be  cared  for  and  equipped  as  well  as  the  car 
for  Whites  who  pay  the  same  rates,  and  that  Negro  schools 
shall  receive  their  proportion  of  State  funds  and  attention. 
As  yet,  this  goal  remains  far  distant.  The  governing  class 
does  not  feel  respo?isibility  for  those  to  whom  it  denies  the  power 
to  ear e  for  themselves.1 

f 

392.   The  Depreciated  War  Currency,  1865-1879.  —  For  some  years 

after  the  war,  the  half  billion  of  Treasury  notes  and  the  third  of  a  billion 

of  National  bank  notes  made  the  only  money  in  circulation.     Paper 

money  was  still  depreciated,  and  prices  were  correspondingly  inflated. 

In  1 868,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  began  to  redeem  four  million 

dollars  of  the  paper  each  month.     This  "contraction  of  the  currency" 

was  believed,   however,   to  threaten  "hard  times"  and  to  profit  the 

monied  classes  at  the  expense  of  debtors ;  and,  in  1868,  Congress  put  a 

stop  to  the  process,  —  with  356  millions  still  outstanding.     These  notes 

were  worth  then  80  or  83  cents  on  the  dollar,  and  they  were  subject  to 

fluctuations  in  value  according  as  the  Wall  Street  speculators  forced  gold 

up  or  down.2 

To  preserve  National  credit,  the  Government  paid  the  interest  on  all 
its  bonds  in  gold ;  but,  under  such  conditions,  even  this  very  proper 
policy  had  its  repulsive  side.     The  man  who  earned  fifty  dollars  in  the 


1  The  most  complete  recent  study  of  the  Negro  problem  is  Hart's  The 
Southern  South. 

2 In  the  summer  of  1869,  Jay  Gould  and  "Jim"  Fisk  made  the  extreme 
attempt  to  corner  gold,  driving  it,  on  Black  Friday,  to  162.  The  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  averted  the  ruin  of  business  interests,  and  overwhelmed  the 
pirates  of  finance,  by  suddenly  throwing  upon  the  market  many  millions  of 
the  government's  gold  reserve.  That  the  government  should  possess  such 
control  over  the  business  of  the  country,  capable  of  exercise  in  either  direc- 
tion, seemed  ominous,  however,  to  many  people,  and  gave  a  sinister  meaning 
to  attempts  by  Go\jld  and  Fisk  shortly  before  to  cultivate  an  intimacy  with 
President  Grant  (§  389). 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  639 

field,  or  who  received  that  amount  as  interest  on  a  small  loan,  had  to 
.take  his  pay  at  its  face  in  paper ;  but  the  wealthy  holder  of  a  government 
bond,  to  whom  fifty  dolters  of  interest  was  due,  could  exchange  his  gold 
for  sixty  or  seventy  dollars  in  paper.  Accordingly,  the  Democratic  plat- 
form of  1868  demanded  "one  currency  .  .  .  for  the  producer  and  the 
bondholder,"  and  urged  that  the  government  should  pay  its  obligations 
in  greenbacks  except  where  the  bond  specifically  named  gold. 

Another  kind  of  wrong  was  more  serious.  When  paper  money  was 
worth  fifty  cents  on  a  dollar,  let  us  say,  a  farmer  had  mortgaged  his  two- 
thousand  dollar  farm  for  half  its  value,  receiving  $1000  in  greenbacks,  or 
$500  in  gold.  Now,  as  paper  appreciated,  approaching  par,  prices  fell, 
until  the  farm  was  worth  perhaps  only  $1000  in  all,  and  the  farmer  must 
pay  all  of  that  to  redeem.  His  property  was  halved,  or  his  debt  doubled, 
by  the  juggling  tricks  of  varying  currency.  Many  men,  who  saw  the 
abuse  clearly,  jumped  at  a  deceptive  remedy.  Local  "Greenback" 
parties  arose,  to  demand  "fiat  money  "  as  a  permanent  policy.  In  1876, 
the  organization  became  national,  with  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  ; 
and  two  years  later,  it  cast  a  million  votes.  Then  it  faded  away  before 
successful  "resumption"  (§428). 

Meantime  the  Republican  party  stood  forth  victoriously  against  all 
these  vagaries  as  the  champion  of  national  credit  and  the  "resumption 
of  specie  payment."  In  1875,  Congress  provided  for  the  accumulation 
of  a  gold  reserve  for  that  purpose,  from  the  sale  of  bonds  and  from  sur- 
plus revenues;  and  January  1,  1879,  the  Treasury  announced  its  readi- 
ness to  exchange  gold  for  its  greenbacks.  Paper  money  rose  at  once  to 
par,  and  no  one  cared  longer  to  make  the  exchange.  A  third  of  a  billion 
remained  in  circulation  ;  but  notes  are  now  redeemable  on  demand,  and 
are  "as  good  as  gold." 

393.  Foreign  Relations.  —  All  general  phases  of  internal  de- 
velopment, except  the  one  temporary  matter  treated  in  the 
preceding  section,  merge  into  the  next  period.  Two  incidents 
connected  with  foreign  relations,  however,  can  best  be  noted 
here. 

a.  France  in  Mexico.  — During  the  War,  England,  Spain,  and  France 
united  in  a  military  "demonstration,"  to  secure  from  Mexico  the  pay- 
ment of  debts  due  their  citizens.  England  and  Spain  soon  withdrew  from 
the  movement ;  but  Napoleon  III  of  France  proceeded  to  establish  Maxi- 
milian, an  Austrian  Archduke,  as  Emperor  of  Mexico,  and  to  maintain 
him  there  by  a  French  army,  in  spite  of  vigorous  protests^rom  Washington 


640  RECONSTRUCTION 

against  this  infraction  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  At  the  close  of  the  war, 
American  troops  were  massed  on  the  Rio  Grande  ;  and  Secretary  Seward, 
renewed  his  representations.  Napoleon  withdrew  his  army.  Then  the 
"Emperor"  was  captured  and  shot  by  the  Mexican  Republicans  (1867). 

b.  Alabama  Claims.  —  Much  bitterness  was  still  felt  toward 
England  for  her  government's  conduct  in  the  matter  of  the 
Alabama  (§  378).  But  in  1867  a  franchise  reform  in  that 
country  put  power  at  last  in  the  hands  of  the  workingmen, 
who  had  all  along  been  friendly  to  the  Union,  and  a  new 
British  ministry  showed  a  desire  for  a  fair  settlement  between 
the  two  nations.  In  the  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871),  England 
apologized  gracefully  for  any  remissness  on  her  part  in  permit- 
ting the  Confederate  cruiser  to  escape,  and  the  question  of 
liability  for  damages  was  submitted  to  arbitration. 

A  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  met  at  Geneva,  —  one  member  appointed  by 
each  of  the  five  governments,  the  United  States,  England,  Switzerland, 
Italy,  and  Brazil.  At  first  the  American  government  claimed  "indirect 
damages" — for  the  cost  of  pursuing  the  Alabama,  the  longer  continu- 
ance of  the  war,  and  the  increased  rates  of  insurance  on  merchant 
shipping.  The  Tribunal  threw  out  these  claims  ;  but  it  decided  that 
England  was  responsible  for  damages  to  American  commerce  committed 
directly  by  the  Alabama,  because  of  England's  lack  of  "due  diligence" 
in  preventing  her  escape.  England  paid  to  the  United  States  the  award 
of  $15,500,000,  to  be  distributed  by  us  to  the  owners  of  destroyed 
property.  The  amount  proved  to  be  excessive,  since  claimants  for  much 
of  it  could  never  be  found  ;  but  the  settlement  was  honorable  to  both 
nations,  and  it  made  the  greatest  victory  up  to  that  time  for  the  principle 
of  arbitration.1 

For  Further  Reading.  —  Dunning's  Beconstruction  ("American  Na- 
tion" series)  ;  Rhodes'  History,  V-VII ;  Woodrow  Wilson's  American 
People,  V  ;  Brown's  Lower  South,  191-271  ;  McCall's  Thaddeus  Stevens, 
239  ff.  ;  Hart's  Chase,  319-435  ;  McCarthy's  Lincoln's  Plan  of  Becon- 
struction. 

1  Another  dispute  between  England  and  the  United  States  concerned  the 
proper  dividing  channel  in  Vancouver  Straits  on  our  Northwestern  boundary. 
The  Treaty  of  Washington  also  referred  this  to  the  German  Emperor  for  set- 
tlement. The  Emperor  favored  the  American  contention,  and  gave  us  the 
disputed  island  of  San  Juan. 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  641 

Source  material,  as  before,  in  Hart's  Contemporaries,  IV,  and  in 
McDonald's  Select  Statutes. 

Illustrative  material :  The  best  story  for  the  Southern  side  is  Thomas 
Nelson  Page's  Bed  Bock,  which  every  Northern  student  should  read. 
Mention  is  due,  also,  to  Tourgee's  A  FooVs  Errand,  Cable's  John  March, 
and  Octave  Thanet's  Expiation. 


-i 


K[ 


PART  IV 

THE  PEOPLE  vs.  PEIVILEGE 


"The  fundamental  division  of  powers  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  between  voters  on  the  one  hand  and  property  owners  on  the 
other.  The  forces  of  democracy,  on  one  side,  divided  between  the 
executive  and  the  legislature,  are  set  over  against  the  forces  of  property 
on  the  other  side,  with  the  judiciary  as  arbiter  between  them."  — 
Arthur  T.  Hadley  (President  of  Yale),  in  The  Independent,  April  16, 
1908. 

CHAPTER   XVI 

A    "BUSINESS   AGE" 

394.  General  Phases.  —  The  thirty -six  years  since  Reconstruction 
(1876-1912)  belong  to  "contemporary  history."  Leading  actors  are 
still  living,  and  causes  and  motives  in  many  cases  are  still  unrevealed. 
Any  narrative  is  necessarily  sketchy  :  and  yet  just  this  history  concerns 
us  most  deeply. 

The  period  has  been  taken  up  mainly  with  industrial  and  economic 
development.  Wealth  has  multiplied  enormously,  and  has  been  concen- 
trated in  a  few  hands,  with  far-reaching  domination  over  politics  and 
over  the  daily  life  of  every  citizen.  In  practically  every  State  one  or 
more  groups  of  capitalists  have  grown  up,  holding  or  hoping  for 
special  privileges.  These  groups  (sometimes  without  seeing  the  full 
tendency  of  their  acts,  but  often  deliberately)  have  set  themselves  to  fill 
legislatures  and  courts  and  governors'  chairs  with  their  creatures  and 
to  intrench  themselves  behind  laws  and  constitutions  framed  for  their 
advantage.  Above  these  several  groups,  other  groups  of  greater  capital- 
ists, controlling  the  whole  network  of  capitalistic  combinations,  have 
come  to  stand  in  like  relation  to  the  Union.  The  forms  of  popular 
government  remained  ;  but,  for  some  decades,  the  people  permitted  real 
mastery,  in  city,'  State,  and  Nation,   to  slip  from  their  own  hands  to 

642 


3  , 


■^v        ^ ...........  V%&45  i     Soo 


RAILROADS  643 

a  narrow  plutocracy,  which  fed  itself  fatter  and  fatter  at  the  general 
expense,  and  which,  too  often,  made  the  trusted  "representatives"  of 
the  people  into  its  obedient  errand  boys. 

Combination  in  the  management  of  industry  follows  naturally  from 
modern  facilities  like  the  railway  and  telegraph.  It  makes  possible  the 
use  of  costlier  machinery,  utilizes  former  wastes  into  by-products,  and 
saves  labor  of  hand  and  brain.  This  tendency  ought  to  have  meant  a 
cooperative  saving  for  all:  in  actual  fact,  it  has  meant  too  often  a  monopoly 
privilege  of  plunder  for  a  few.  The  problem  of  the  age  is  to  secure  the 
proper  gains  of  inevitable  and  wholesome  combination  and  at  the  same 
time  to  restore  to  the  individual  his  industrial  and  political  liberty. 

I.    RAILROADS 


395.  Extension. — The  four  years  of  war  checked  railway 
extension  (§§  290,  362);  but  the  last  five  years  of  the  sixties 
almost  doubled  the  mileage  of  the  country.  The  new  lines 
were  located  mainly  in  the  Northwestern  States  and  Terri- 
tories ;  and  they  were  busied  at  first  only  in  carrying  settlers 
to  the  moving  frontier,  and  then  soon  in  bringing  back  farm 
produce.  From  1873  to  1878,  construction  was  checked  again 
by  one  of  the  periodic  business  panics.  Then  by  1880,  another 
almost  fabulous  burst  raised  the  mileage  to  92,000,  and  the' 
next  ten  years  nearly  doubled  this, — to  164,000  miles.  Since 
1890,  expansion  has  been  less  rapid;  but  the  next  twenty 
years  (to  1910)  raised  the  total  to  237,000  miles.  Since  1880,  ' 
America  has  had  a  larger  ratio  of  railway  mileage  to  population 
than  any  other  country.  Railroads  represent  one  seventh  the 
total  wealth  of  the  Nation,  and  employ  more  than  a  million 
men. 

The  eighties  witnessed  also  a  transformation  in  the  old  railroads. 
Heavier  steel  rails,  thanks  to  the  Bessemer  invention,1  replaced  iron. 
This  made  possible  the  use  of  heavier  locomotives  and  of  steel  cars  of 


1  It  was  this  same  invention  that  made  possible  also  a  transformation  of 
cities  in  exterior,  and  in  character  of  life,  —  a  change  symbolized  by  the  re- 
placement of  the  old  four  or  five-storied  buildings  by  the  new  steel  ten-to- 
thirty-storied  structures. 


644  A  BUSINESS  AGE 

greater  size  ;  and  this  improvement  called  in  turn  for  straightening  curves, 
cutting  down  grades,  and  bettering  bridges  and  roadbed.  A  huge  amount 
of  capital  became  "fixed"  in  these  changes;  but  they  greatly  reduced 
the  cost  of  transportation  to  the  companies. 

Many  safety  appliances,  too,  were  forced  upon  the  roads  by  law.  But 
the  loss  of  life  upon  them  remains  a  blot  on  American  civilization,  — far 
greater  than  the  relative  loss  in  any  other  country.  Data  on  this  matter 
were  first  collected  in  1888  ;  but  since  then  the  accidents  have  doubled. 
In  1905,  the  roads  killed  9703  people,  and  injured  80,006.  The  Cuban 
War  was  less  costly.  For  trainmen  the  danger  is  especially  appalling. 
One  out  of  every  133  was  killed  in  that  year  ;  and  one  of  every  9  was 
maimed.  This  horrible  destruction  of  life  is  due  in  part  to  the  rush  and 
recklessness  of  American  society ;  but  it  has  important  specific  causes, 
such  as  the  "economical"  continuance  of  "grade  crossings,"  even  on 
crowded  streets,  and  the  cruel  practice  of  compelling  employees  to  work 
overtime  —  until  senses  become  dulled  and  incapable  of  responding 
quickly.  In  1907,  Congress  prohibited  more  than  sixteen  hours  continu- 
ous service  for  men  engaged  in  carrying  interstate  commerce. 

396.  Consolidation.  —  More  significant  than  these  physical 
changes  was  the  consolidation  of  management.  In  1860,  no  one 
company  reached  from  the  seaboard  to  Chicago,  or  controlled 
more  than  500  miles  of  road.  One  short  line  led  to  another, 
and  so  to  another,  with  awkward  gaps,  or  annoying  and  costly 
transfers,  and  with  corresponding  changes  in  rates  and  sched- 
ules, and  perhaps  even  in  width  of  track.  By  1880,  gaps  had 
•  been  filled,  gauges  unified,  and  small  lines  grouped  into  a  much 
smaller  number  of  larger  systems.1 

Consolidation  was  a  business  necessity.  Construction  had 
far  outrun  demand;  and  the  greatest  burden  of  cost  had  had 
to  be  borne  while  there  was  still  little  business.  For  that 
little,  the  roads  were  driven  to  ferocious  competition.  Con- 
solidation ended  the  worst  of  this  cutthroat  process,  and  also 
made  a  more  economical  management  possible. 


1  Thus  the  Pennsylvania  Road  ran  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg.  In  1869, 
it  bought  up  the  Fort  Wayne  line,  reaching  to  Chicago ;  and  by  1875  it  had 
absorbed  other  lines,  giving  it  terminals  in  St.  Louis,  Cinciunati,  and  New 
York. 


I 


WATERED  STOCK  645 

The  panic  of  '73  was  essentially  a  railroad  panic.  Before  '78,  half 
the  mileage  of  the  country  had  been  sold  under  the  hammer  or  had  passed 
into  the  hands  of  "receivers,"  to  be  managed  for  the  creditors.  This 
condition  gave  special  opportunity  for  the  absorption  of  weak  lines  by 
strong  ones. 

Railroad  presidents  explained  the  panic  on  this  ground  of  over-invest- 
ment. Another  cause,  of  which  they  said  little,  was  over-capitalization. 
The  operating  companies  really  were  poor ;  but,  as  the  people  saw,  the 
men  who  had  built  the  roads  had  become  fabulously  rich.  Often  they 
had  put  in  practically  no  money,  —  building  the  roads  from  National  or 
State  grants,1  or  with  money  borrowed  by  bond  sales,  secured  on  the 
future  road.  Then  they  had  sold  stock,  to  any  amount  which  they  could 
persuade  a  credulous  public  to  buy,  pocketing  the  millions  of  proceeds, 
and  leaving  the  corporations  upon  which  they  had  "  unloaded  "  to  extort 
in  rates  from  the  people  the  interest  not  only  on  the  legitimate  invest- 
ment, but  also  on  this  "  watered  stock." 


397.  Watered  Stock.  —  When  the  stock  and  bonds  of  a  corporatioi 
equal  the  money  actually  invested,  the  value  is  fully  "capitalized." 
To  make  the  legitimate  investment  "pay,"  it  must  secure  an  income 
sufficient  to  pay  good  interest  on  this  capitalization  (the  rate  varying 
somewhat  according  to  the  certainty  or  risk  of  the  investment),  together 
with  adequate  salaries  and  other  running  expenses,  and  also  to  set  aside 
a  fair  amount  to  cover  "  depreciation  "  (as  in  the  wearing  out  of  engines 
or  their  passing  out  of  use  because  of  better  inventions).  Whenever 
more  capital  is  put  into  improvements,  it  is  proper  for  a  board  of 
directors  to  sell  more  stock  or  to  issue  more  bonds,  representing  the 
increased  value.  But  to  sell  more  stock  or  bonds  upon  an  old  invest- 
ment already  fully  capitalized  is  to  dilute  values  improperly,  and  is  a 
fraud  upon  either  the  purchasers  or  the  public,  —  usually  the  latter, 
since  it  is  compelled  to  pay  interest  on  this  "  water."  If  the  improve- 
ments are  paid  for  out  of  profits  {above  the  normal  dividends)  instead  of 
out  of  new  capital,  then  the  public  is  just  as  much  defrauded  —  since  it 


1  Before  1873,  more  than  150  millions  of  acres  had  been  granted  to  railroads 
out  of  the  public  domain  (about  as  much  as  passed  to  settlers  under  the 
Homestead  Act  up  to  1900),  besides  lavish  "bounties"  paid  by  rival  towns 
along  possible  routes.  In  1872,  every  party  platform  demanded  that  such 
National  grants  cease ;  and  some  years  later,  President  Cleveland's  adminis- 
tration enforced  the  forfeiture  to  the  government  of  many  grants,  for  non- 
fulfilment  of  contracts  by  the  companies. 


646  A  BUSINESS  AGE 

really  furnishes  the  capital  at  the  time  in  unreasonable  charges,  and  the 
dividends  upon  it  afterward  in  a  continuation  of  such  charges. 

The  public-service  corporations,  like  railroads  and  city  lighting-com- 
panies, have  peculiar  facilities  in  selling  such  over-issues  of  stock  because 
of  the  monopoly  privilege  conferred  upon  them  by  society.  Indeed, 
"watered  stock"  upon  which  dividends  can  really  be  paid,  represents 
monopoly,  natural  or  artificial.  Whenever  dividends  become  so  large  as 
to  incur  danger  from  popular  indignation  (say  12  per  cent),  it  has  been 
the  practice  of  public-service  corporations  to  disguise  their  profits  by  issu- 
ing more  stock  (each  holder  receiving  perhaps  two  shares  for  one).  The 
company  then  claims  the  right  to  charge  enough  to  pay  a  "  reasonable  " 
dividend  of  at  least  6  per  cent  upon  this  "water,"  urging  especially 
the  rights  of  "  widows  and  orphans  "  who  have  acquired  stock  by  inno- 
cent purchase.  Such  dividends  represent  an  unreasonable  tax  upon  the  com- 
munity, including  multitudes  of  other  widows  and  orphans,  who  are  forced  to 
pay  higher  prices  for  almost  all  commodities.  Over-capitalization  of  corpora- 
tions is  unquestionably  one  cause  of  the  "  increased  cost  of  living  "  which 
has  marked  recent  years.  Until  quite  lately,  little  attempt  was  made 
to  prevent  stock-watering,  and  public  control  is  not  yet  efficient.  In 
general,  when  the  "water"  has  once  been  marketed,  the  courts  have 
protected  the  corporations  in  their  claims  to  dividend-paying  rates. 

398.  Pooling  and  Discriminations.  —  The  first  period  of  rail- 
way consolidation  closed  about  1880,  with  some  1500  lines  still 
doing  business.  From  time  to  time,  to  prevent  ruinous  rate- 
wars,  the  lines  within  a  given  territory  (say  between  Chicago 
and  the  Atlantic)  now  adopted  the  device  of  throwing  their 
earnings  into  a  common  "  pool,"  to  be  divided  later  according  to 
some  set  ratio.  This  method  was  characteristic  of  the  eighties. 
It  restored  the  railroad  to  its  natural  position  as  a  monopoly. 

Rates  on  freight  did  fall,  but  not  so  fast  as  did  the  cost  of  transporta- 
tion to  the  companies.  At  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  the  average  rate 
for  one  ton  for  one  mile  was  about  2  cents  (gold  value).  By  1877,  it 
was  if  cents  ;  five  years  later,  i\  ;  and  by  1900  only  f  of  a  cent. 
But,  in  spite  of  the  apparently  low  average,  many  localities  paid  much 
higher  rates.  Moreover,  long  hauls  in  trains  of  car-load  lots  (as  in 
hauling  Montana  cattle  to  Chicago,  or  Kansas  wheat  to  New  York)  cost 


POOLING  AND  DISCRIMINATIONS         -      647 

the  railroads  so  much  less  than  small  local  business  that  they  make  large 
profits  even  at  the  lowest  rates  used,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  even  those 
"  low  "  rates  confiscate  the  inland  farmer's  profits.  As  the  country  grew 
in  population  and  production,  railway  profits  became  great  enough  to 
permit  high  dividends  upon  even  the  watered  stock,  after  wasteful 
management. 

In  fixing  rates  for  localities  where  one  road  controlled  the  freight 
business,  the  maxim  early  became  "  all  the  traffic  will  bear.'"'  The  road, 
existing  by  virtue  of  a  franchise  from  the  people,  and  sometimes  built 
by  other  gifts  from  the  people,  extorted  from  the  people  all  their  surplus 
profits  above  what  it  seemed  advisable  to  leave  them  in  order  to  induce 
them  to  go  on  producing  more  freight.  Roads  used  their  power,  too,  to 
destroy  one  city  and  build  up  another,  sometimes  perhaps  to  gratify 
caprice  or  to  afford  opportunity  to  those  "on  the  inside"  for  profits  in 
real  estate,  but  more  commonly  "in  the  regular  course  of  business." 
Often  they  favored  large  cities  at  the  expense  of  small  ones,  and  gave 
lower  rates  to  large  shippers  than  to  small  ones. 

a.  The  two  statements  in  the  last  sentence  can  be  readily  illustrated. 
Faribault,  a  town  of  seven  thousand  people,  is  situated  on  a  road  from 
Chicago  to  Minneapolis,  and  is  65  miles  nearer  Chicago  than  Minneapolis 
is ;  but  freight  from  Chicago  to  Faribault  was  as  high  as  on  the  same 
goods  right  through  Faribault  to  Minneapolis  and  back  again  to  the  smaller 
town.  Such  practice  was  general.  It  built  up  the  large  centers,  but 
drove  mills  and  factories  away  from  the  small  ones  by  artificial  pressure. 
It  was  the  first  method  to  which  the  people  woke  up,  out  of  many  methods 
by  which  organized  wealth  had  begun  to  govern  the  lives  and  everyday 
fortunes  of  individuals  and  communities. 

b.  Farmers  were  subjected  to  a  particularly  irritating  discrimination. 
The  land  grants  to  railroads  were  in  the  form  of  alternate  sections. 
Farmers  had  settled  the  intervening  sections,  and  thereby  added  value  to 
the  railroad  lands,  which,  still  unsold,  kept  the  settlers  unduly  scattered, 
with  all  the  disadvantages  that  followed  such  an  arrangement.  When  the 
lands  had  become  sufficiently  valuable,  they  were  sold  in  large  amounts 
to  "  bonanza  kings,"  who  were  then  given  better  rates  in  shipping  produce 
than  were  the  poorer  settlers  about  them.  The  worst  abuses,  however, 
of  this  discrimination  between  individuals  were  found  in  the  cities,  though 
they  were  there  more  secret,  and  though  the  companies  were  sometimes 
their  unwilling  victims  themselves.  To  obtain  the  business  of  great 
shippers,  they  felt  compelled  to  submit  to  demands  for  secret  and  lower 
rates ;  and  sometimes  they  even  obliged  such  a  shipper  by  imposing  a 


tit. 


648  '  ^^BU^SS^^^^W-^-   y 

particularly  high  rate  upon  a  competing  shipper.  Thus  at  one  time  the 
growing  Standard  Oil  Company  ordered  a  railway  to  "give  another  twist 
to  the  screw"  upon  a  rival  oil  company  which  it  desired  to  put  out  of 
business. 

399.  Attempts  at  State  and  National  Regulation.  —  For  long, 
"  the  intense  desire  for  railway  advantages  prevented  serious 
attempts  at  public  regulation  of  these  abuses.  Only  by  slow 
degrees,  indeed,  did  the  public  as  a  whole  awake  to  their 
existence.  In  the  early  seventies,  however,  appeared  organiza- 
tions of  Western  farmers,  known  as  "  Patrons  of  Husbandry," 
or  Grangers,1  for  the  special  purpose  of  doing  away  with  rail- 
road abuses.  In  1871,  Illinois  established  a  State  Railway 
Commission,  with  power  to  fix  rates  and  to  prevent  discrimina- 
tions. This  example  was  followed  promptly -in  Iowa,  Wiscon- 
sin, Minnesota,  and  several  other  Western  and  Southern 
States ;  and  much  other  restrictive  legislation  was  enacted. 

Much  of  this  legislation  was  unreasonable,  no  doubt.  It  was  enacted  in 
the  dark,  because  the  roads  refused  to  make  public  any  information  about 
their  business  ;  and  sometimes  it  was  infused  with  a  bitter  spirit  of  retali- 
ation. The  companies  made  it  for  the  most  part  ineffective,  by  securing 
delays  in  the  courts,  the  judges  of  which  they  had  secretly  assisted  to  ap- 
pointment or  election,  or  had  influenced  by  free  passes  and  other  dis- 
graceful favors.  They  bulldozed  timid  business  interests,  too,  against 
even  proper  regulation,  by  ceasing  railway  extension,  or  threatening  to 
cease  it  ;  and  most  of  the  legislation  was  finally  repealed.  Railway  Com- 
missions, however,  are  found  now  in  nearly  every  State.  In  most 
cases  their  authority  is  limited  to  investigating  charges  and  giving 
publicity  to  conditions ;  and  in  some  unhappy  instances  they  have  . 
become  merely  the  creatures  of  the  corporations  they  are  elected  to 
restrain. 

1  Each  local  organization  was  called  a  "grange."  The  Grangers  were  the 
first  workingman's  party  outside  the  cities ;  and  the  movement  represented  a 
wholesome  tendency  to  turn  away  from  the  spectacular  work  of  ruling  the 
distant  South,  in  order  to  take  up  pressing  problems  nearer  home.  In  1872, 
too,  a  Labor  party  and  a  Prohibition  party  achieved  National  organizations. 

The  Grangers  had  a  social  and  economic  as  well  as  a  political  side.  One  of 
their  attempts  was  to  build  up  a  system  of  cooperative  elevators  to  store 
grain. 


RAILWAY  PROBLEMS  649 

At  first,  the  Supreme  Court  seemed  favorably  inclined  toward 
the  Granger  legislation ; x  but  in  1886,  it  decided  that  a  State 
could  not  legislate  regarding  the  carriage  of  goods  billed  to 
another  State,  even  for  that  part  of  the  journey  within  its  own 
borders.  This  decision  ended  all  prospect  of  effective  regula- 
tion of  railroads  by  the  States. 

So  far  Congress  had  refused  to  act.  Now,  National  control 
seemed  imperative ;  and  in  1887  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act 
forbade  pooling,  secret  rates,  discriminations  of  all  kinds  (includ- 
ing especially  a  higher  rate  for  a  short  haul  than  for  a  longer 
one  on  the  same  line,  when  the  shorter  distance  was  included 
within  the  longer,  except  under  certain  peculiar  conditions  of 
competition),  and  created  a  Commission  of  five  persons  to  inves- 
tigate complaints  and  punish  violations  of  these  provisions. 

400.   Failure    to    Preserve    Competition.  —  The    roads    now 
abandoned    pooling  for   "  rate  agreements "   and   for    a   new 
period  of  consolidation,  and  so  continued  the  old  process  under 
new  names.     The  former  period  of  consolidation  had  united 
short  lines  into  "  trunk "  systems,  several   still  in  one  terri- 
tory :  the  new  tendency  was  to  consolidate  all  the  trunk  lines 
of  a  given  territory  into  one  system.     By  1895,  the  number  of        f\ 
separate  lines  was  less  than  800,  of  which  some  forty  included         y 
more  than  half  the  mileage  of  the  country.     In  1897-1898,  two       yL 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  declared  any  rate  agreement      J/ 
a  "conspiracy  in  restraint  of   trade,"  which  had  been  made    y\< 
illegal   under   the   Sherman   Anti-trust  Act  of    1890    (f~3TI)UY   Jr 
This  merely  hastened  further  consolidation,  so  that  by  1904 
all  the  important  lines  were  controlled  by  seven  or  eight  groups 
of  capitalists.     In  1904,  the  Court  made  a  futile  effort  to  stop 
this  movement  by  declaring  the  consolidation  of  parallel  lines 
illegal  (Northern  Securities  Case)  under  the  same  Anti-trust 
Act.     But,  once  more,  combination  to  avoid  competition  was  > 
merely  driven  to  another  disguise.     The  groups  of  capitalists  ^  X 

1  The  Court  was  just  then  in  the  full  swing  of  its  disposition  to  maintain 
State  Rights  against  the  Reconstruction  policy  of  Congress  (cf.  §  390). 


l^-4JU    fa 


650  A  BUSINESS  AGE 

no  longer  consolidate  the  stock  of  different  companies  into 
one,  with  one  board  of  directors  ;  but  they  exchange  among 
themselves  the  stock  of  the  different  companies  which  they 
control,  and  memberships  in  the  different  governing  boards, 
and  so  maintain  a  community  of  ownership  and  management. 

401.  The  Commission  shorn  by  the  Courts.  —  For  a  time,  in  regard 
to  other  abuses,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  seemed  to  promise  a  better 
day.  The  roads,  however,  persistently  evaded  or  disobeyed  the  law ; 
and  its  main  intent  was  soon  nullified  by  decisions  of  the  courts.  Con- 
gress meant  to  make  the  Commission  the  final  authority  as  to  facts, 
leaving  to  the  Federal  courts  only  a  power  to  review  the  decisions,  on 
appeals,  as  to  their  reasonableness  upon  the  basis  of  those  established 
facts.  The  courts,  however,  determined  to  permit  the  introduction  of  new 
evidence  on  such  appeals.  This  meant  a  new  trial  in  every  case,  and  de- 
stroyed the  character  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  was 
hampered,  too,  by  various  decisions  of  the  courts  —  as  by  one  which 
set  aside  its  authority  to  compel  the  companies  to  produce  their  books. 
As  the  veteran  Justice  Harlan  declared  indignantly,  in  a  dissenting 
opinion,  the  Commission  was  "  shorn  by  judicial  interpretation  of  authority 
to  do  anything  of  effective  character."  In  1898,  the  Commission  itself 
J^      formally  declared  its  position  "intolerable." 

O  402.  The  Hepburn  Act  of  1900  sought  to  revive  the  authority  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  which  was  now  impowered  to  fix 
"just  and  reasonable  rates,"  subject  to  review  by  the  Federal  courts. 
The  law  also  forbade  roads  (1)  to  grant  free  passes,  (2)  give  "rebates" 
of  any  sort,  or  (3)  carry  their  own  produce.  These  prohibitions  should 
be  briefly  discussed. 

a.  Lavish  grants  of  passes,  good  for  a  year,  and  renewed  each  New 
Year,  extending  sometimes  to  free  travel  across  the  continent  and  back, 
had  been  one  of  the  most  common  means  of  indirect  bribery  of  legisla- 
tors, congressmen,  newspapers.  Sometimes  a  judge  traveled  on  such  a 
pass  to  the  court  when  he  tried  cases  in  which  the  railroad  was  a  party. 
Apart  from  the  corrupting  influence  of  the  practice,  too,  the  public  had 
of  course  to  pay  for  the  passes  in  higher  rates.  In  this  matter  Con- 
gressional prohibition  was  preceded  by  similar  prohibition  in  many  of 
the  States ;  and  this  reform  is  probably  really  established. 

b.  Rebates  had  long  been  one  of  the  chief  methods  of  evading  the 
Interstate  Commerce  law  against  discriminations.     Certain  favored  ship- 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  COMMISSION         651 

pers,  no  longer  given  better  rates  than  their  neighbors  directly,  were  still 
given  secret  rebates  in  coin,  or,  still  less  directly,  were  allowed  to  falsify 
their  billing  of  freight,  so  as  to  come  under  a  lower  legal  rate,  or  were 
paid  unreasonable  allowances  for  themselves  storing  or  handling  freight, 
or  for  the  rent  of  private  cars  furnished  by  the  customers.  The  receivers 
of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Road  in  1898  testified  that  more  than  half  the 
freight  of  the  country  was  still  carried  on  discriminating  rates.  Says 
Professor  Davis  R.  Dewey  {National  Problems,  in  "  American  Nation  " 
series,  103)  :  "  The  ingenuity  of  officials  in  breaking  the  spirit  of  the  law 
knew  no  limit,  and  is  a  discouraging  commentary  on  the  dishonesty  which  had 
penetrated  to  the  heart  of  business  enterprise;  "  and  one  of  the  great  railroad 
presidents  mourned,  in  1907,  that  good  faith  had  "  departed  from  the 
railroad  world."  When  company  and  shipper  agree  in  trying  to  deceive 
the  authorities  in  such  a  matter,  proof  is  exceedingly  difficult ;  and  it  is 
too  much  to  suppose  that  the  more  stringent  provisions  of  the  Hepburn 
Act  have  done  away  with  this  demoralizing  and  infamous  practice.  The 
admirable  State  Railway  Commission  of  Wisconsin,  however,  backed 
by  the  remarkable  legislation  of  that  State,  seems  to  have  completely 
abolished  the  evil  in  one  State  of  the  Union. 

c.  Certain  Pennsylvania  Roads  owned  the  most  important  coal  mines 
of  the  Nation,  and  paid  themselves  what  they  pleased,  out  of  one  pocket 
into  another,  for  carrying  coal  to'market,  —  so  excusing  themselves  for  a 
higher  price  to  the  consumer.  The  last  prohibition  referred  to  above  (3) 
attempted  to  stop  this  practice.  So  far,  the  attempt  is  fruitless.  The 
United  States  Steel  Corporation  mines  iron  in  northern  Minnesota.  In 
deference  to  the  Hepburn  Act  the  Corporation  is  not  also  a  railroad 
corporation ;  but  the  same  group  of  capitalists  under  another  name  own 
railroads  (on  the  "  community  of  interest "  method)  which  carry  the  ore 
to  market  at  extravagant  rates. 

403.  Recent  Phases.  —  In  1906-1908  a  new  series  of  attempts  were 
made,  over  widely  spread  sections  of  the  Union,  to  secure  a  two-cent 
passenger  rate  and  lower  freight  rates  by  State  legislation,  on  travel 
and  commerce  wholly  intrastate.  Many  of  these  laws  have  been  nullified 
as  confiscatory  by  the  courts.  On  the  other  hand,  in  1910,  Congress 
oi\ce  more  attempted  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission,1  and  created  a  new  Court  of  Commerce,  to  hear  appeals 

1  The  bill,  as  originally  approved  by  President  Taft  and  his  cabinet,  was 
a  shrewd  design  to  undermine  whatever  authority  remained  in  the  Com- 
mission.   The  measure,  it  Seems  most  probable,  had  really  been  dictated  by 


652  NATIONAL  GROWTH,    1860-1913 

from  it.  It  is  yet  too  early  (1913)  to  speak  positively  of  the  workings  of 
this  law.  But,  the  same  fall,  when  the  roads  tried  to  get  permission 
from  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  raise  existing  rates  (on  the 
ground  that  the  higher  prices  of  recent  years  increased  their  operating 
expenses),  the  Commission  was  able  to  forbid  the  change.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  the  Commission,  later  in  the  year,  after  careful  investigation, 
ordered  lower  rates  on  Western  traffic  (where  abuses  had  long  been  no- 
torious), the  commerce  Court  promptly  nullified  their  action. 

After  this  forty  years  of  failure  in  public  control,  there  are  still 
many  people  who  do  not  see  why  a  railway  should  not  be  as  free  to 
charge  one  shipper  more  and  another  less  as  is  a  shoe  manufacturer  to 
sell  to  one  retailer  cheaper  than  to  another.  The  distinction  between 
private  business,  open  to  all  on  the  same  terms,  and  the  business  of  a 
common  carrier  existing  by  right  of  a  grant  from  the  Commonwealth  is 
always  recognized  both  by  common  and  by  statute  law.  Attempts  at 
public  regulation  of  these  mighty  agencies,  however,  have  proved  so 
futile  for  almost  two  generations  that  many  thinkers  are  turning  to  the 
alternative  of  public  ownership. 

V  II.    NATIONAL   GROWTH 

404.  Population .  —  Reconstruction  practically  came  to  a  close  with  the 
centennial  of  the  Republic.  The  Union  then  consisted  of  thirty-eight 
States.  Kansas  had  been  admitted  in  1861,  Nevada  in  1864,  Nebraska  in 
1867,  and  Colorado  in  1876.  In  1867,  too,  the  public  domain  was 
augmented  by  600,000  square  miles  (since  found  rich  in  coal  and  gold), 
by  the  purchase  of  Alaska  from  Russia.  Between  1860  and  1880,  popula- 
tion rose  from  31  millions  to  oOjnjJJions.  One  fourth  the  gain  during 
this  twenty  years  (5^  jnillions)  came  from  immigration.  The  urban 
population  (one  sixth  in  1860)  rose  to  one  fifth  the  whole  in  1870,  and  one 
fourth  in  1880.  During  the  same  twenty-year  period  wealth  multiplied 
two  and  a  half  times,1  despite  the  ravages  of  war. 

railroad  interests.  But  its  weak  and  misleading  features  were  exposed 
mercilessly  and  effectively  by  the  gallant  group  of  "Insurgents"  (§  457)  in 
Congress,  and  the  people  made  an  irresistible  demand  for  some  real  increase 
in  protection  against  transportation  monopoly.  The  bill  as  it  passed  was  a 
wholesomely  transformed  measure. 

!The  following  comparison  of  per  capita  wealth  for  different  sections  at 
two  periods  is  instructive: 

North  Atlantic  State*                     South  Atlantic  Western 

1860    .     .     $528    .     .     $ 537  (including  slaves)     .     .     $434 
1890     .     .      1232     .     .       579 2250 


Longitude 


West 


c      oc^^ 
"J*-'*     Ufl  ALASKA  ,fl 


;ou\t!inj--_ '-A 

i^^Galveston 
GULF 


G   U   L    *  "    -  Xatrtf 

THE  UNITED  STATES 

i 


PORTO  RICO 

_6fL 


HAVAN 


20 


0 


THE   STATES  653 

In  the  thirty  years  that  have  followed,  this  growth  in  wealth  has  been 
accelerated.  The  rate  of  growth  of  population  for  each  decade,  it  is  true, 
has  slowly  declined;  but  the  total  rose  by  1890  to  63|  millions  ;  by 
1900  (not  including  the  eight  millions  in  the  new  possessions  acquired  in 
the  Spanish  War)  to  Ti\  millions;  and  in  1910,  to  93 1  millions.  The  city 
population  in  1910  had  risen  to  almost  one  half  of  the  whole  (46.3  per 
cent).  Farmers,  formerly  the  dominant  element  in  the  population,  now 
make  less  than  one  third. 

Immigration,  it  will  be  remembered,  received  a  remarkable  impulse 
about  1850.  The  panic  of  1857  and  the  war  checked  it  seriously  ;  and  not 
till  1873  did  the  annual  increase  from  this  source  rise  again  to  400,000. 
Then  came  another  falling  away,  from  the  industrial  depression  of  the 
next  years.  But  in  1883,  the  newcomers  numbered  three  fourths  of  a 
million,  and  the  year  1905  passed  the  million  mark. 

Until  1890,  the  character  of  immigration  remained  essentially  as  before 
the  Civil  War,  —  with  an  increase  of  the  proportion  of  Scandinavians, 
who  settled  mainly  in  the  Northwest.  But  since  that  year,  more  and 
more,  the  immigrants  have  come  from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe,  — 
Italians,  Russian  Jews,  Bohemians,  Poles,  Hungarians.  A  large  part  of 
these  Southern  European  immigrants  are  illiterate  and  unskilled,  with  a 
"standard  of  living"  lower  than  that  of  American  workingmen.  In 
1880,  they  made  only  one  twentieth  of  the  immigrants  ;  in  1900,  they 
made  one  fourth  ;  and  the  proportion  is  constantly  increasing.  Unlike 
the  earlier  immigrants,  they  settle  mainly  in  the  seaboard  cities  and  in 
other  great  manufacturing  centers,  and  add  rapidly  to  the  European 
character  of  the  growing  proletariat  there.  Meanwhile,  the  rapid  decrease 
in  the  birthrate  of  families  of  the  older  American  stocks  (especially 
of  the  New  England  stock)  alarms  many  observers,  who  raise  the  cry 
of  "race-suicide." 

A  curious  fact  is  revealed  by  the  census  of  1910.  Population  in  the 
agricultural  Middle  West  (so  long  the  scene  of  most  rapid  growth)  has 
become  practically  stationary;  while  the  old  East  (in  its  manufacturing 
districts)  and  the  far  West  share  between  them  the  most  rapid  gains.  It 
should  be  noted,  too,  that  though  the  West  has  the  largest  percentage 
of  gain,  the  East  has  gained  far  the  most  in  actual  numbers. 

405.  States  and  Territories.  —  In  the  eighties,  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation was  still  most  characteristic  of  the  new  communities  in  the  West. 
In  the  Dakotas,  districts  without  a  settler  in  March  were  perhaps  organ- 
ized and  settled  counties  in  November.  Soon  North  and  South  Dakota 
were  knocking  for  admission  into  the  Union.  The  Democratic  strength 
in  Congress,  however,  was  unwilling  to  admit  more  States  so  certain  to 


654 


NATIONAL  GROWTH,    1860-1913 


THE  STATES  655 

reinforce  the  Republican  party.  They  had  more  hopes  for  themselves 
in  Montana  and  Washington;  and,  in  i88g,  a  compromise  "omnibus" 
bill  admitted  all  four  States.  The  next  year,  the  Republicans,  now  in 
full  control,  with  equal  partisanship,  hurried  the  admission  of  Idaho 
and  Wyoming  with  a  population  too  small  to  entitle  them  properly  to 
representation  in  Congress. 

The  Mormons  in  Utah  had  long  ceased  to  hope  for  the  isolation  they 
had  sought  in  the  desert.  In  1862  (and  more  effectively  in  1882)  Con- 
gress prohibited  polygamy  in  that  Territory,  and  dissolved  the  Mormon 
church  as  a  corporation.  In  1890,  the  Mormon  authorities  renounced 
polygamy  as  a  doctrine ;  but,  from  suspicions  of  good  faith,  the  Territory 
was  refused  admission  as  a  State,  though  it  possessed  a  population  of  over 
two  hundred  thousand  people.  In  i8g6,  however,  it  was  finally  admitted, 
with  a  State  constitution  forbidding  plural  marriages. 

The  admission  of  Utah  raised  the  number  of  States  to  forty-five, 
where  it  stood  for  eleven  years,  until  the  admission  of  Oklahoma  (1907)  1 
with  a  constitution  remarkable  for  its  democratic  experiments.  Arizona 
and  New  Mexico  were  the  only  remaining  Territories  on  the  continent. 
Congress  planned  to  admit  them  together ;  but  Arizona  placed  the  recall 
(applicable  even  to  judges)  in  her  constitution,  and  statehood  was  de- 
layed for  some  time  on  that  account.  After  several  failures,  a  bill  for 
admission  passed  Congress  in  the  special  session  of  191 1,  with  a  pro- 
vision requiring  the  people  of  the  Territory  first  to  vote  once  more  upon 
this  clause  of  their  constitution,  but  leaving  the  final  determination  in 
their  hands.  President  Taft  vetoed  this  bill;  and,  at  his  insistence, 
statehood  was  offered  only  on  condition  that  the  people  should  first  vote 
down  the  recall  provision.2  This  was  done,  in  December  of  the  same 
year.  But,  at  the  same  election,  anti-administration  officials  were  chosen 
for  the  new  State  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Territory  proclaimed  in 
advance  that,  statehood  once  secured,  they  would  work  to  restore 
the  recall  to  the  constitution.  This  threat  has  since  been  made  good 
(November,  1912).  The  admission  of  these  two  States  (1912)  leaves  a 
solid  block  of  forty-eight  States  in  the  vast  region  bounded  by  the  two 


1  In  1874,  a  strip  of  the  "  Indian  Territory  "  was  organized  as  the  Territory 
of  Oklahoma.     In  1907,  the  two  districts  were  reunited  in  the  new  State. 

2  Many  people  who  personally  disbelieved  in  the  recall  were  hotly  indig- 
nant at  this  attempt  to  "bribe "  a  whole  people  into  stultifying  itself.  This 
indignation  played  a  part,  a  few  weeks  later,  in  a  striking  vote  for  the  recall 
in  the  great  State  of  California  (§  463) . 


656  NATIONAL  GROWTH,    1860-1913 

oceans,  east  and  west,  and  by  Canada  and  Mexico  north  and  south.  Ere 
long,  no  doubt,  the  United  States  will  be  confronted  with  demands  for 
statehood  from  distant  possessions,  —  Alaska,  Hawaii,  or  Porto  Rico. 

406.  The  New  South,  no  longer  distracted  by  political  recon- 
struction, began  to  reap  its  share  of  the  industrial  development. 
The  long-neglected  advantages  for  cotton  manufacture  were 
first  seized  upon.  Mills  (built  first  by  Northern  capital)  arose 
along  the  "  Fall  Line  "  ;  and  cheap  labor  was  found  by  inducing 
the  "  Poor  Whites  "  of  the  neighboring  mountain  folk  to  gather 
in  factory  villages  —  where  the  families  might  live  on -the  un- 
accustomed earnings  of  their  children.  The  low  standard  of 
living,  and  the  absence  of  legal  restraint  in  the  South  on  long 
hours  of  labor  or  on  employment  of  young  children,  made 
manufacturing  particularly  profitable  in  this  region,  —  where 
it  reproduces  still  (1913)  the  shameful  conditions  which  Eng- 
land and  the  North  outgrew  half  a  century  ago.  By  1880,  the 
output  of  Southern  factories  was  one  fourth  that  of  New 
England. 

The  new  spirit  of  enterprise  began  also  to  make  use  of  the 
mines  and  forests  of  the  South.  In  particular,  attention  turned 
to  the  vast  mineral  region  stretching  from  West  Virginia 
through  Tennessee  into  northern  Alabama  —  700  miles  long  and 
150  wide,  —  rich  in  coal  and  iron.  By  1880,  Alabama  was 
sending  pig  iron  to  Northern  markets,  and  soon  she  became 
herself  one  of  the  great  centers  of  steel  manufactures. 

Thus  the  old  agricultural  South  has  been  transformed  into  a 
new  South  of  diversified  industries.  And  even  agriculture  has 
been  transformed.  Just  after  the  war,  attempts  were  made  to 
cultivate  huge  plantations  of  the  old  type  with  gangs  of  hired 
Negroes.  This  proved  a  losing  venture ;  and  soon  the  great 
plantations  began  to  break  up  into  smaller  holdings  rented  on 
shares  to  Negroes  or  to  Poor  Whites.  These  renters  have  been 
growing  rapidly  into  owners.  The  Negro's  wholesome  ambition 
to  own  a  farm  promises  to  be  a  chief  source  of  industrial  and 
social  salvation  to  his  race  and  to  the  whole  South. 


-  ' 

IMMORAL  METHODS  657 


III.     UBIG   BUSINESS 


407.  Business  Immorality.  —  In  the  decades  following  the 
Civil  War,  an  amazing  lack  of  morals  became  increasingly 
noticeable  in  business.  The  tendency,  too  observable  before 
the  war  (§  366),  had  been  strengthened  by  the  flaunting  success 
of  corrupt  army  contractors,  and  was  fostered  no  doubt  for  years 
afterward  by  the  gambling  spirit  begotten  of  an  unstable  cur- 
rency and  of  the  spectacle  of  multitudes  of  fortunes  made  over 
night  in  the  oil  wells  of  Pennsylvania  x  or  in  the  new  mining 
regions  of  Nevada,  Colorado,  Idaho,  and  Montana.  In  later 
years,  too,  the  tremendous  power  over  credits  possessed  by  rail- 
road kings  and  other  heads  of  great  consolidations  of  capital  has 
tempted  them  constantly  from  their  true  functions  as  "  captains 
of  industry  "  to  play  the  part  of  buccaneers  in  the  stock  market. 
Unreasonable  profits,  too,  in  the  regular  line  of  business  draw 
the  controlling  stockholders  in  multitudes  of  corporations 
to  increase  their  own  shares  by  juggling  the  smaller  holders 
out  of  theirs. 

Sometimes  the  controlling  stockholders  of  a  corporation  turn  its  affairs 
over  to  an  operating  company  —  composed  of  themselves  alone  —  which 
then  absorbs  all  the  profits  of  the  whole  business  in  salaries  or  in  other 
ways  provided  in  the  contract  which  the  raiders  have  made  with  themselves. 
Or  leading  members  of  a  railway  company  organize  an  inside  company  — 
like  an  express  company — to  which  then  the  legitimate  profits  of  the 
first  company  are  largely  diverted  in  the  shape  of  excessive  rates  on  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  railroad  business.  Only  one  degree  worse  is  the  deliber- 
ate wrecking  of  a  prosperous  corporation,  by  intentional  mismanagement, 
so  that  the  insiders  may  buy  up  the  stock  for  a  song,  and  then  rejuvenate 
it  —  to  their  huge  profit.  Step  by  step,  the  law  has  striven  to  cope  with 
all  such  forms  of  robbery  ;  but  numerous  shrewd  corporation  lawyers 
find  employment  in  steering  "  certain  malefactors   of  great   wealth  "  2 

1  Petroleum  was  discovered  in  Pennsylvania  in  1859,  but  no  marked  develop- 
ment came  in  production  till  after  the  War.  Then  "  to  strike  oil  "  soon  be- 
came a  byword  for  success  —  equivalent  to  a  "  ship  come  home  "  in  the  days 
of  more  primitive  commerce.  In  1872,  petroleum  ranked  among  our  exports 
next  to  cotton,  wheat,  and  meats. 

2  A  phrase  of  President  Roosevelt's  (§  454). 


658  "big  business:: 

through  the  devious  channels  of  "  high  finance  "  so  as  to  avoid  grazing 
the  letter  of  the  law.1 

One  ruinous  consequence  of  this  lack  of  moral  sense  was  a  general 
indifference  to  the  looting  of  the  public  domain  by  business  interests  and 
favored  individuals.  Thus,  the  timber  on  the  public  lands,  with  decent 
care,  would  have  supplied  all  immediate  wants  and  still  have  remained 
unimpaired  for  future  generations.  But  with  criminal  recklessness,  the 
people  permitted  a  few  individuals  not  only  to  despoil  the  future  of  its 
due  heritage,  but  even  to  engross  to  themselves  the  vast  immediate 
profits  which  properly  belonged  to  present  society  as  a  whole.2  Quaintly 
enough,  this  piteous  spoliation  and  waste  was  excused  and  commended 
as  "  development  of  natural  resources,"  and  laws  were  made  or  twisted 
for  its  encouragement. 

Timber  land,  especially  the  pine  forests  of  the  Northwest,  did  not 
attract  the  genuine  homesteader  :  too  much  labor  was  required  to  convert 
such  lands  into  homes  and  farms,  and  the  soil  and  distance  from  market 
were  discouraging  for  agriculture.  Such  lands  ought  to  have  been  with- 
drawn by  the  Government  from  homestead  entry.  But,  as  the  law  was 
then  administered,  a  man  could  "  enter  "  a  quarter  section,  clear  a  patch 
upon  it,  appear  upon  it  for  a  night  every  few  months,  and  so  fulfill  all 
legal  requirements  to  complete  title ;  —  after  which  he  had  perfect  right 
to  sell  the  valuable  timber,  which  had  been  his  only  motive  in  the 
transaction.  Multitudes,  less  scrupulous  about  legal  formalities,  sold 
the  timber  immediately  after  making  entry,  without  ever  "proving  up" 
at  all. 

But  these  individual  operations  were  trivial  in  amount.  The  big 
lumber  kings  extended  their  effect  by  hiring  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
"  dummy  "  homesteaders  to  secure  title  in  this  way  to  vast  tracts  of  forest 
and  then  turn  it  over,  for  a  song,  to  the  enterprising  employer.     Nor,  in 

1  Capable  students,  with  access  to  periodicals,  might  well  be  called  upon 
for  topics  regarding  the  New  York  Insurance  Companies  Scandal  of  1905,  and 
the  stealings  from  the  custom  house  by  the  Sugar  Trust,  disclosed  in  1910.  A 
peculiarly  irritating  phase  of  the  latter  scandal  was  the  calm  unconsciousness 
with  which  the  Sugar  Trust,  after  escaping  by  a  fine,  paid  back  the  fine  to 
itself  by  an  increase  in  the  price  of  sugar  to  the  people. 

2  And,  in  their  haste  to  grasp  these  huge  profits,  the  big  lumbermen  wasted 
more  than  they  pocketed,  —  taking  only  the  best  log  perhaps  out  of  three,  and 
leaving  the  others  to  rot  or,  along  with  the  carelessly  scattered  slashings,  to 
feed  chance  fires  into  irresistible  conflagrations,  which,  it  is  estimated,  have 
swept  away  at  least  a  fourth  of  our  whole  forest  wealth. 


CONSOLIDATION   OF  CAPITAL  659 

early  years,  did  any  one  see  wrong  in  this  process.  Condemnation,  none 
too  severe  anyway,  was  reserved  for  those  lumbermen  who  took  shorter 
cuts,  by  forging  the  entries  or  by  using  the  same  "  dummies  "  more  than 
once,  in  open  defiance  of  the  letter  of  the  law. 

Like  methods  characterized  the  public  sales  of  lands.  Each  land 
office  received  reports  from  its  "  cruisers  "  as  to  the  timber  standing  on 
the  various  sections.  The  law  forbade  the  official  of  the  land  office 
himself  to  bid  at  the  sale ;  but  the  general  custom  was  for  him  to  hand 
lists  of  choice  sections  to  a  friend,  with  the  quiet  injunction,  "  Get  all  of 
this  that  you  can."  The  favored  friend,  so  supplied  with  inside  infor- 
mation, was  often  able  to  change  dollars  into  thousands ;  and  at  some 
proper  time,  unless  unusually  deficient  in  gratitude,  he  divided  with  his 
informant.  All  this  was  legal,  and  so  society  saw  no  harm  in  it ;  and  when 
a  few  restless  agitators  sought  to  amend  the  laws  which  had  been  framed 
to  permit  such  loot,  the  interests  which  fattened  by  them  were  long  able 
to  interpose  delays  without  society's  growing  any  wiser.  In  ways  simi- 
lar, but  varied  as  to  details,  the  State  lands  became  the  legalized  booty 
of  enterprising  citizens.  This  epidemic  of  plunder  and  waste  found  its 
golden  age  in  the  seventies  and  early  eighties;  but  even  after  the 
people  began  to  grumble,  the  process  went  on,  only  a  little  less  boast- 
fully. Finally,  in  the  Roosevelt  administration,  the  government  awoke 
and  zealously  locked  the  stable  door  —  upon  such  few  steeds  as  remained 
unstolen  (§  454). * 

408.  Consolidation  of  capital  and  management  was  noticeable 
first  on  a  large  scale  in  transportation  (railroads,  above)  ;  but  it 
was  soon  almost  equally  marked  in  nearly  every  line  of  pro- 
duction and  commerce.  Small  stores  merged  into  department 
stores;  small  firms  into  corporations ;  corporations  into  "  trusts." 
The  age  of  small  individual  enterprise  Las  given  way  to  an  age 
of  large  combinations. 

Between  1880  and  1890,  the  number  of  woolen  mills  decreased  from 
1990  to  1311  ;  iron  and  steel  mills  lessened  a  third  in  number ;  and  the 

1  Every  high  school  student  should  read  William  Allen  White's  A  Certain 
Rich  Man,  —  a  sort  of  "Pilgrim's  Progress  "  allegory  of  American  life  in  the 
decades  following  the  Civil  War*.  The  phases,  good  and  had,  of  this  waste  of 
the  public  domain,  last  treated,  are  pictured  graphically  in  Stewart  Edward 
White's  two  related  stories,  The  Riverman  and  The  Rules  of  the  Game. 

Exercise.  —Review  the  land  policy  of  the  United  States.     (See  index.) 


660  "BIG  BUSINESS" 

manufacturies  of  farm  implements  sank  in  number  from  1943  to  910  ;  but 
in  each  of  the  three  lines,  the  capital  and  the  output  was  doubled  or 
trebled.     Half  as  many  factories  put  forth  twice  as  large  a  product. 

The  forces  back  of  this  movement,  and  its  advantages  for  the  capitalist, 
have  been  noted  briefly  (§  394).  Six  milk  wagons,  belonging  to  as  many 
different  milk  companies,  following  one  route,  represent  a  waste  of  capital 
and  labor :  a  milk  "  trust  "  could  save  both,  with  service  just  as  good  or 
better.  The  village  slaughterhouse  used  to  throw  away  horns  and  hoofs  ; 
the  Chicago  packing  house  works  all  such  refuse  up  into  useful  by-products. 
In  general,  the  big  enterprise  makes  it  possible  to  cheapen  production. 

Be  it  said  once  more,  this  saving  ought  to  be  regulated  so  as  to  benefit 
all.  But,  in  actual  fact,  these  combinations  have  been  sheltered  from 
public  control,  and  even  from  public  investigation,  by  the  traditions  and 
legal  principles  of  an  outgrown  age  of  individualism,  until  they  have 
become  monopolies  whereby  the  few  plunder  the  many. 

Ownership  of  a  water  power,  or  of  a  mine,  or  of  a  pine  forest,  is  a 
natural  monopoly.  Another  slightly  different  sort  of  monopoly  is  repre- 
sented by  certain  kinds  of  business,  like  city  lighting  or  street  cars, 
where  competition  is  either  altogether  impossible,  or  where  at  least  it 
would  be  excessively  silly  and  wasteful,  —  and  so  in  the  long  run  hurtful 
to  society.  Sometimes,  in  such  cases,  the  government  grants  an  exclu- 
sive franchise,  and  so  constitutes  a  legal  monopoly;  but  these  forms  of 
business  are  usually  classed  with  the  "natural  monopolies,"  since 
they  are  monopolistic  "  in  the  nature  of  the  case."  They  derive  their 
existence,  however,  not  from  nature  alone  but  directly  from  some  franchise 
grant  by  society ;  and  so  they  are  more  generally  looked  upon  as  suitable 
for  social  control. 

"  Big  Business  "  creates  a  still  different  sort  of  monopoly.  A  great 
manufacturing  "  trust "  calls  for  so  much  capital  that  a  competitor  can 
hardly  afford  to  try  to  build  factories  and  secure  machinery,  with  the 
uncertainties  of  the  certain  commercial  war  before  it.  If  the  attempt  is 
made,  the  stronger  enterprise  kills  off  the  other,  if  necessary  by  selling 
below  cost,  —  recouping  itself  afterward,  of  course,  at  public  expense, 
when  it  again  has  the  market  to  itself.  This  form  of  monopoly  is  so 
recent,  and  so  resembles,  in  outer  form,  the  competitive  business  of  for- 
mer days,  that  society  awakened  only  slowly  to  the  need  of  regulating 
it  effectively  for  the  common  good. 

409.  "  Trusts."  —  In  1865,  the  Standard  Oil  Company  was 
organized  in  Cleveland,  with  a  capital   of  $100,000.      Under 


"TRUSTS"  661 


the  skillful  management  of  John  D.  Rockefeller  it  soon 
began  to  absorb  the  other  companies  in  that  city  —  which  was 
already  the  center  of  the  industry  of  refining  crude  petroleum. 
Thus  it  grew  powerful  enough,  and  its  management  was 
unscrupulous  enough,  to  compel  railway  companies  to  set  up 
secret  discriminations  for  it,  and  against  its  rivals  (§  398), 
until  it  absorbed  or  killed  off  most  of  the  oil  companies  in  the 
country.  In  1870,  the  Standard  Oil  was  one  of  250  competing 
companies,  and  its  output  was  less  than  one  twentieth  the 
whole :  in  1877,  it  controlled  nineteen  twentieths  the  output ; 
and  of  the  few  remaining  companies  the  leading  forty  were 
"  affiliated,"  and  took  orders  from  it.  A  few  independent  com- 
panies, however,  were  still  putting  up  so  stiff  a  fight  that  a 
closer  organization  seemed  needful  to  insure  success  for  the 
monopoly;  and,  in  1882,  Rockefeller  invented  the  "  trust. " 
The  forty  affiliated  companies  turned  over  their  property  to 
one  board  of  nine  trustees,  each  stockholder  in  an  old  company 
receiving  proper  certificates  of  stock  in  the  new  organization. 
This  board  of  trustees  managed  the  whole  business.  The 
arrangement  was  secret  and  exceedingly  informal  and  elastic. 
The  trust  was  not  incorporated.  The  trustees,  when  con- 
venient, could  easily  deny  knowledge  of  the  doings  of  subordi- 
nate companies,  or  disavow  responsibility  for  them  ;  and,  with 
better  reason,  the  companies  could  throw  responsibility  upon 
the  intangible  "  trust." 

Other  industries  seized  at  once  upon  this  new  device  for  con- 
solidating management  and  capital.  It  proved  eminently 
satisfactory  to  the  stockholder  (though,  in  the  process  of  organ- 
ization, many  small  companies  were  squeezed  out  of  their 
property)  ;  but  it  abolished  competition,  which  had  always  been 
regarded  as  the  sole  safeguard  (1)  of  the  consumer,  (2)  of  the 
small  producer  of  raw  material,  and  (3)  of  the  laborer.  The 
Standard  Oil  Trust  bought  from  the  owner  of  an  oil  well  at  its 
own  price,  being  practically  the  only  buyer.  So  the  Meat  Trust 
bought  from  the  cattle  raiser.  Then  the  Trust  sold  its  finished 
product  at  its  own  rate,  —  which  was  sometimes  an  advance 


662  "BIG  BUSINESS" 

upon  former  prices,  and  which  was  never  reduced  enough  to 
correspond  with  the  decreased  cost  of  production.  The  profits  to 
the  corporation  have  steadily  mounted,  even  when  prices  have 
been  somewhat  lower ;  and  the  "  cost  of  living "  has  been 
made  unduly  high. 

Sometimes,  as  with  tin  and  steel  plate  of  some  sorts,  the 
absence  of  competition,  together  with  the  prevalent  low  busi- 
ness morality,  led  to  scandalous  deterioration  in  the  goods  put 
upon  the  market,  and  so  robbed  the  consumer  doubly.  Labor- 
ers in  a  "  trust "  industry  found,  too,  that  they  had  now  only 
one  possible  employer.     They  must  accept  its  proffered  wage, 

'  |Or^starve. 

'!r  410.  Attempts  to  prevent  Monopoly.  —  The  people  took  alarm. 
States  enacted  anti-trust  legislation  (for  the  most  part,  futile) ; 
and,  in  1882,  Congress  passed  the  Sherman  Anti-trust  Act,1 
forbidding  "  every  combination "  in  restraint  of  interstate 
commerce.  Again  the  Standard  Oil  led  the  way.  With 
cheap,  superficial  obedience,  it  dissolved  into  twenty  com- 
panies ;  but  one  and  the  same  group  of  capitalists  retained 
the  controlling  interest  in  the  stock  of  each  company,  and  com- 
posed the  twenty  "  inter-locking  "  boards  of  directors.  Other 
trusts  followed  this  method  of  maintaining  "community  of 
interest  and  management,"  as  the  railways  were  to  do  later 
(§  400)  ;  or  they  reorganized  openly  as  huge  corporations.  "The 
term  "  trust '  was  abandoned  as  a  technical  business  term ; 
but  it  remains  properly  enough  in  popular  use  to  describe 
either  of  these  forms  by  which  aggregated  capital  monopolizes 
an  industry. 

Indeed,  the  monopolistic  movement  had  only  begun.  In 
1890,  there  were  a  score  of  "  trusts  "  in  the  United  States  with 
an  aggregate  capital  of  a  third  of  a  billion  dollars.  In  1899, 
there  were  about  150r  mostly  organized  within  two  years, 
with  a  total  capital  of  over  three  billions.     In  1901  came  the 


1  So-called  from  Senator  John  Sherman  of  Ohio,  who,  however,  had  little  to 
do  with  drafting  the  law,  though  he  advocated  it  in  ardent  speeches. 


N 


THE   ANTI-TRUST  ACTS  663 

organization  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  with  a 
capital  of  $  1,100,100,000,  and  bonded  indebtedness  to  over  three 
hundred  millions  more,  the  capitalization  largely  water ;  and 
between  1900  and  1904  it  is  generally  estimated  that  the  num- 
ber of  trusts  was  multiplied  by  eight  or  nine,  and  that  the  cap- 
italization rose  from  three  billions  to  over  thirty  billions.  Of 
this  immense  sum,  a  huge  portion  was  in  seven  companies,  and 
these  had  manifold  and  intricate  ramifications ;  so  that  three 
or  four  men,  perhaps,  possessed  real  control. 

In  1899  the  Supreme  Court  undermined  the  Anti-trust  law  by  holding 
that  it  applied  only  to  transportation  (commerce),  not  to  the  preliminary 
production  and  manufacture,  although  these  "  industrial "  trusts  were  just 
what  Congress  had  had  in  mind.  Under  compulsion  from  later  legisla- 
tion and  from  public  opinion  this  position  has  been  abandoned  ;  but  the 
attitude  of  the  courts  has  so  far  (19 13)  made  efforts  to  punish  monopoly 
vain,  even  when  they  have  felt  constrained  to  declare  it  illegal.  Finally, 
in  191 1,  the  Supreme  Court  again  weakened  the  Anti-trust  act  by  affirm- 
ing that  the  words  "every  combination1'  in  restraint  of  trade,  mean 
only  "  every  unreasonable  combination,"  and  that  upon  the  courts  it  rests 
in  each  case  to  decide,  on  a  formal  trial,  whether  a  given  trust  is  reason- 
able or  not. 

This  decision,  dissented  from  vigorously  by  Justice  Harlan,  as  "dan- 
gerous judicial  legislation,  "  is  the  more  amazing,  since  an  amendment  to 
precisely  that  effect,  strenuously  urged  by  the  monied  power,  had  been 
voted  down  emphatically  in  Congress  after  full  debate.  The  Supreme 
Court  rewrote  the  law  in  just  the  form  in  which  Congress,  the  constitu- 
tional law-making  power,  rejected  it! 

True,  the  decision  was  part  of  an  order  to  the  Standard  Oil  Company 
to  dissolve,  as  an  "unreasonable"  combination;  and  that  order,  out- 
wardly, has  been  complied  with.  But  few  people  believe  that  more  has 
been  really  accomplished  thereby  than,  years  before,  by  the  farcical  disso- 
lution of  the  Northern  Securities  Company  (§  400),  after  a  similar  order. 
It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  capitalists  can  be  punished  for  organiz- 
ing monopolies  which  may  or  may  not  be  held  "unreasonable"  after 
years  of  delay  and  litigation  ;  and,  without  punishment  for  infraction  of 
the  law,  the  law  is  merely  a  matter  of  contempt.  After  long  years  of  lit- 
igation and  vast  public  expense,  the  violators  of  the  law  are  left  in  posses- 
sion of  the  spoils  illegally  gained,  and  the  crushed  competitors  and  ruined 


664  "BIG  BUSINESS" 

lives  are  neither  redressed  nor  avenged.  As  with  the  railroads,  the 
attempt  to  prevent  monopoly,  or  to  regulate  it,  seems  to  have  failed. 
New  legislation,  however,  is  being  attempted. 

In  yet  another  way,  the  Federal  courts  have  protected  an  avowedly 
11  bad"  trust.  In  1908,  Judge  Landis,  of  the  Federal  District  of  Illinois, 
imposed  on  the  Standard  Oil  Company  fines  aggregating  more  than 
§29,000,000,  after  conviction  for  repeatedly  violating  the  law  against  ask- 
ing and  accepting  rebates.  The  judgment  was  hailed  as  completing  the 
Roosevelt  program  (§  454)  against  the  trusts  ;  but,  in  1910,  it  was  set 
aside,  as  unreasonably  high,  by  the  Federal  Court  of  Appeals.1 

v 0  \  411.   Attempts  at  State  regulation  of  trusts  to  lessen  the  evils 
q?9.    of  monopoly,  have  taken  the  form  of  State  laws  which  permit 
^  incorporation  only  on  condition  that  there  shall  be  no  stock- 

watering,  that  publicity  of  management  shall  be  secured,  and 
that  officials  may  be  held  strictly  to  account.  But  such  legisla- 
tion, though  characteristic  of  nearly  every  State,  was  long 
rendered  of  no  account  by  three  "  trust-owned  "  States,  —  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  and  West  Virginia.  These  three  merely 
opened  the  door  wider  than  before  to  incorporations  of  every  sort. 
A  corporation  organized  in  any  State  has  constitutional  sanction 
to  do  business  in  all,  and  can  be  deprived  of  its  charter,  the 
one  effective  penalty  for  misconduct,  only  by„  the  home  State. 
Accordingly,  by  1907,  95  per  cent  of  the  American  trusts  had 
found  refuge  in  these  three  States.  In  1913  their  citadel 
in  the  favorite  State  of  New  Jersey  was  overthrown  by  the 
resolute  democracy  and  honest  devotion  to  the  public  welfare 
of  the  governor,  Woodrow  Wilson ; 2  but  their  opportunity  to 
pick  any  one  of  forty -eight  States  in  which  to  corrupt  a  legis- 
lature, still  makes  it  almost  impossible  for  other  States  to  con- 
trol them. 

Some  States  began  an  attempt  to  curb  the  power  of  monopoly,  and 
to  take  back  for  the  public  at  least  a  small  part  of  its  unreasonable 

1  A  court  created  in  1890  to  take  over  part  of  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  which  was  then  some  twelve  hundred  cases  behind. 

2  On  his  last  day  of  office,  after  a  splendid  two-years'  battle,  Governor 
Wilson  signed  seven  "  anti-trust  "  bills,  which  made  New  Jersey  perhaps  the 
most  "  trust-proof  "  State  in  the  Union. 


AND  THE  COURTS  665 

profits,  by  taxing  such  corporations  higher  than  ordinary  individuals 
were  taxed.  This  line  of  operation  was  also  stopped  at  once  (1882) 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  under  authority  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 
That  Amendment  forbade  a  State  to  discriminate  among  persons.  In 
the  Case  of  California  vs.  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  the  Court  held 
that  a  corporation  is  a  "person,"  not  only  in  the  eye  of  the  law  gener- 
ally, but  even  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  person  in  this  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  though  no  one  thought  of  such  a  thing  when  the  Amend- 
ment was  being  ratified. 

Accordingly  no  taxation  can  be  applied  to  corporations,  even  to  specially 
favored  public-service  corporations,  other  than  to  other  citizens.  In  no 
other  civilized  land  is  the  government  so  powerless  to  deal  with  aggre- 
gated wealth  as  this  decision  makes  the  States  of  the  Union.  The 
Fourteenth  Amendment  had  been  robbed  of  its  intent  —  to  protect  real 
persons,  of  dark  skins,  by  previous  decisions  of  the  Court  (§  391).  By 
this  decision  it  was  converted  into  a  shield  to  protect  artificial  persons, 
in  the  shape  of  dangerous  monopolies,  from  needful  regulation  by  the 
people.  The  Southern  Pacific  Case  is  to  be  coupled  with  the  Dartmouth 
College  Case  (§  280)  as  explaining  how  the  Constitution  has  been  made 
a  shelter  to  property  interests  against  public  control  far  beyond  anything 
contemplated  even  by  the  founders  of  the  Constitution.  For  the  next 
thirty  years  the  Southern  Pacific  was  "  king  "  in  California  (§  459). 

Some  democratic  thinkers  recognize  that  the  trust,  or  at  least  consoli- 
dation of  management,  is  inevitable  in  various  lines  of  industry.  Some 
such  thinkers  hold  that  the  present  evils  will  be  corrected  by  the  trusts 
themselves,  under  the  influence  of  a  more  intelligent  public  opinion  ;  and 
they  look  with  hope  to  the  work  of  the  Bureau  of  Corporations,  estab- 
lished in  1903,  —  a  branch  of  the  government  to  investigate  the  organiza- 
tion and  conduct  of  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce.  The 
report  of  this  Bureau  on  the  horrible  conditions  of  the  beef-packing 
houses  in  Chicago  justified  its  establishment  (1907)  and  led  to  prompt 
correction  of  the  abuses. 

In  no  branch  of  the  government  are  there  more  devoted  and  capable 
men  than  the  band  of  scholarly,  energetic,  self-denying  "soldiers  of  the 
commonweal "  who  compose  the  working  force  of  this  department. 
But  all  such  investigation  will  probably  prove  valuable  ultimately  only  as 
it  may  lead  to  more  effective  public  control,  or,  in  some  lines,  to  public 
ownership.  Very  significant  is  a  recent  utterance  of  Attorney  General 
Wickersham  at  Duluth,  —  a  conservative  member  of  President  Taft's 
conservative  Cabinet  —  that  it  may  become  necessary  for  the  government 


666  "BIG  BUSINESS" 

to  fix  the  prices  on  trust-controlled  goods.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  some 
way  will  be  found,  however,  to  control  trusts  which  will  not  so  tempt  the 
trusts  each  day  to  try  to  control  the  government. 

412.  The  Extent  of  the  Problem.  — In  1893,  according  to  conserva- 
tive students,  9  per  cent  of  the  people  owned  directly  71  per  cent  of  the 
wealth.  By  19 10,  this  estimate  was  generally  put  at  one  tenth  the  people 
for  nine  tenths  the  wealth.  But  the  control  of  wealth  (the  essential  thing) 
is  much  more  concentrated  even  than  direct  ownership.  In  1908,  it  was 
estimated  ( World's  Work,  VII,  4259)  that  the  men  making  up  the  board 
of  directors  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  had  a  controlling  in- 
terest in  other  corporations  which  together  owned  one  twelfth  the  wealth 
of  the  country.  Said  Senator  LaFollette,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  in 
that  same  year :  "  No  student  of  economic  changes  in  recent  years  can 
escape  the  conclusion  that  the  railroads,  telegraph,  shipping,  cable,  tele- 
phone, traction,  express,  mining,  iron,  steel,  coal,  oil,  gas,  electric  light, 
cotton,  copper,  sugar,  tobacco,  agricultural  implements,  and  the  food 
products  are  completely  controlled  and  mainly  owned  by  these  hundred 
men."  More  recently,  conscientious  students  have  asserted  that  seven 
men,  three  from  the  Pierpont  Morgan  group  and  four  from  the  Standard 
Oil  group,  control  the  fundamental  industries  and  resources  of  the  United 
States.  Such  estimates  cannot  have  scientific  accuracy ;  but  no  authority 
doubts  that  they  contain  a  large  element  of  truth. 

This  gives  added  point  to  the  prophetic  words  of  Senator  Sherman  in 
the  debate  on  the  Antitrust  act,  in  1890:  "If  the  concentrated  powers 
of  this  combination  [the  relatively  small  trusts  of  1890]  are  intrusted  to 
a  single  man,  it  is  kingly  prerogative,  inconsistent  with  our  form  of  gov- 
ernment. ...  If  we  will  not  endure  a  king  as  a  political  power,  we  should 
not  endure  a  king  over  the  production,  transportation,  and  sale  of  any 
of  the  necessities  of  life.  If  we  would  not  submit  to  an  emperor,  we 
should  not  submit  to  an  autocrat  of  trade  with  power  to  prevent  competi- 
tion and  fix  the  price  of  any  commodity." 

The  most  serious  power  of  such  aggregated  capital  is  exercised  in 
indirect  ways.  It  can,  at  will,  withdraw  money  from  circulation,  com- 
pel banks,  therefore,  to  contract  loans ;  force  factories,  accordingly,  even 
those  not  in  any  way  owned  by  the  combination,  to  shut  down  or  cut 
down  output  and  discharge  workmen ;  and  so  bring  on  business  depres- 
sion and  starvation.  There  seems  little  doubt  but  that  such  power  is 
often  used  in  slight  degree  and  for  short  flurries,  to  influence  the  stock 
market  and  favor  gambling  enterprises  there ;  and  it  is  almost  certain 


PUBLIC   SERVICE  CORPORATIONS  667 

that  the  power  has  been  used  more  than  once  (§  454)  to  cause  a  "  panic," 
in  order  to  intimidate  timid  reformers  from  the  firing  line  in  the  battle 
for  civic  righteousness,  —  which  might  otherwise  soon  interfere  with  the 
money  trust's  ownership  of  judges  and  congressmen.  The  same  tremen- 
dous powjer,  without  question,  aims  intelligently  at  the  control  of  higher 
educational  institutions  and  at  other  chief  means  of  informing  and  in- 
fluencing the  people.  It  buys  up  the  "  muckraking  "  magazines,  domi- 
nates multitudes  of  newspapers,  and  exerts  great  influence  over  such 
agencies  of  information  as  the  Associated  Press.1  Two  phases  of  their 
direct  influence  upon  the  lives  of  the  people  are  particularly  significant. 
They  fix  labor  conditions  in  many  trades,  almost  at  will,  and  they  drain 
huge  revenue  from  the  people  to  pay  dividends  on  "water"  (§  397). 
It  is  estimated  that  in  191 2  thirty  billions  of  corporation  stock  repr- 
esented merely  "  water,"  and  that  the  yearly  tribute  on  this,  drawn  from 
the  nation,  amounted  to  about  $18  a  head,  or  some  $100  for  each  family 
in  the  land.2 


&¥ 


413.    Public   Service  Corporations  and  Political  Corruption.  — 

The  first  important  "public  service  corporations"  were  the 
railways,  already  treated;  but  soon  after  the  war  the  growth, 
of  cities,  along  with  new  inventions  for  providing  greater  com- 
fort in  city  life,  gave  tremendous  importance  to  other  such 
corporations,  each  to  serve  some  need  of  a  single  city,  —  gas 
companies,  electric  lighting  companies,  water  companies,  tele- 
phone companies,  street  car  companies.  The  tendency  toward 
municipal  corruption,  already  strong  before  the  Civil  War,  was 
frightfully  augmented  by  the  development  of  these  corporations. 
Each  had  to  secure  the  right  to  use  the  public  streets  for  tracks 
or  pipes  or  wires,  in  order  to  do  business.  Usually  it  tried,  in 
the  early  decades  of  the  period,  to  get  such  a  charter  as  would 
give  it  exclusive  use  of  the  streets,  for  its  kind  of  business,  for 

1  This  control  over  news  items  is  particularly  sinister.  Practically  every 
large  newspaper  in  the  country  "  featured  "  Tom  Johnson's  alleged  failure  in 
his  fight  for  three-cent  street  car  fares  in  Cleveland ;  but,  except  for  a  few 
radical  ones,  they  ignored,  or  concealed  in  some  obscure,  fine  print,  three-line 
item,  the  fact  that  his  contentions  won  soon  afterward. 

2  Progressive  leaders  hope  to  check  and  reduce  this  "  overcapitalization." 
The  trust  magnates  hope  to  legalize  it  permanently. 


668  "BIG  BUSINESS" 

a  long  term  of  years  or  in  perpetuity.  At  the  same  time  it 
sought  to  escape  any  real  public  control  over  its  rates  or  over 
the  service  it  should  render,  by  making  vague  the  charter 
clauses  bearing  on  such  matters,  or  by  inserting  "jokers"  to 
destroy  their  apparent  force. 

Shrewd  men  came  to  see  that  such  grants  would  become  in- 
creasingly profitable  with  the  growth  of  city  population ;  and, 
to  secure  them,  some  corporations  found  it  profitable  to  buy 
up  public  officials  on  a  large  scale.  If  the  charter  was  by  any 
chance  decently  just  to  the  city,  the  corporation  often  prevented 
the  enforcement  of  the  best  provisions  for  years  by  getting  its 
own  tools  elected  to  legislatures  or  city  councils  or  judge- 
ships, and  by  having  other  tools  appointed  to  the  inspector- 
ships which  were  supposed  to  see  that  the  company's  service 
was  as  good  as  called  for  in  its  contract.  Standard  Oil  com- 
panies, railway  corporations,  and  their  like,  worked  in  simi- 
lar manner  upon  the  legislatures  and  judiciaries  of  State  and 
Nation. 

These  forces  were  largely  responsible  for  an  increased  body 
of  political  "grafters"  in  the  governing  bodies  of  State  and 
city,  —  ivho  ivere  then  ready  to  extend  their  operations  unblush- 
ingly  to  other  parts  of  the  public  business,  as  in  extorting  bribes 
from  business  men  who  wished  to  secure  the  furnishing  of  sup- 
plies to  the  city  or  the  contract  for  building  a  city  improve- 
ment. 

Public  graft  became  an  organized  business.  City  pay  rolls 
were  padded  with  names  of  men  who  rendered  no  service, 
sometimes  of  men  who  did  not  exist,  but  whose  salaries  were 
drawn  to  fatten  the  income  of  some  "boss".  Important 
offices  were  turned  over  to  incompetents,  favored  for  political 
service.  The  corruption  of  American  city  government  was 
exceeded  only  by  its  inefficiency.1     Commonly,  too,  it  allied 

1  About  1890,  Andrew  D.  White  visited  many  of  the  most  important  Euro- 
pean cities.  At  Constantinople,  he  wrote,  the  rotting  docks  and  general  evi- 
dence of  inefficiency  made  him  homesick :  nowhere  else  had  he  been  so  reminded 
of  American  cities  (!). 


PUBLIC   SERVICE  CORPORATIONS  669 

itself  not  only  with  public,  but  also  with  private1  crime. 
Police  departments  permitted  gamblers  and  thieves  and  thugs 
to  ply  their  trades  with  impunity,  so  long  as  they  did  not 
become  too  notorious  ;  and  in  return  the  precinct  captains  col- 
lected each  week  regular  pay  envelopes  from  the  criminals, 
—  the  greater  part  of  which  went  ultimately  to  higher  officials, 
chief  of  police,  mayor,  or  political  boss. 

The  first  case  of  city  corruption  to  catch  the  public  attention  was  the 
infamous  Tweed  Ring,  which  robbed  New  York  City  of  a  hundred  millions 
of  dollars  in  two  years  (i  869-1 870).  '2  This  ring  was  finally  broken  up, 
and  "Boss"  Tweed  was  sent  to  Sing-Sing,  largely  through  the  fearless 
skill  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  soon  after  the  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
presidency  (§  389).  For  long  it  was  a  pet  delusion  of  multitudes  of 
"  respectable  "  Republicans  that  the  New  York  scandal  was  an  excep- 
tional case,  due  to  the  deplorable  fact  that  New  York  was  controlled  by  a 
Democratic  organization  (Tammany)  ;  but  later  it  developed  that  Tam- 
many's methods  were  coarse  and  clumsy  by  the  side  of  those  by  which  a 
Republican  "  ring  "  had  looted  Philadelphia.  Slowly  the  people  have 
learned  that  corruption  has  no  party.  The  biggest  "  boss  "  naturally 
allies  himself  with  whichever  party  is  usually  in  control  in  his  district ; 
but  he  has  a  perfect  understanding  with  corrupt  leaders  of  the  other  party, 
upon  whom  he  can  call  for  help  against  any  revolt  within  his  own  organ- 
ization, so  "  playing  both  ends  against  the  middle."  The  surest  weapon 
at  the  service  of  these  sly  rogues  is  an  appeal  to  the  voters  to  be  loyal  to 
the  party,  —  so  dividing  good  men  and  obscuring  real  issues  in  local  gov- 
ernment. Nor  does  one  house  cleaning  and  the  punishment  of  a  few 
rascals  end  the  matter.  Gains  are  too  great.  In  a  few  years,  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  were  again  dominated  by  rings  quite  as  bad  as  the  first 
ones.  With  an  occasional  spasm  of  ineffectual  reform,  such  conditions 
remained  characteristic  of  practically  every  important  city  until  the  rising 
of  the  mighty  tide  of  reform  about  the  opening  of  the  new  century. 

The  graduation  of  corrupted  scoundrels  from  city  and  State  politics 
into  National  politics  is  one  cause  of  the  degradation  that  befell  the  latter 
(§  389).    But  National  politics  had  also  its  own  troubles.      What  a  street 

1  Against  individuals,  rather  than  against  the  city  as  a  whole. 

2  One  building  which  should  have  cost  $250,000  remained  unfinished  after 
six  years  and  the  expenditure  of  eight  millions — most  of  which  had  come 
back  into  the  pockets  of  the  ring. 


670  "BIG  BUSINESS'! 

car  company  or  a  gas  company  was  to  a  city  council  or  to  a  State  judi- 
ciary, a  railroad  or  a  Standard  Oil  Company  was  to  Congress  and  the 
Federal  bench.  Corporations  which  wish  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  the 
party  machinery  in  State  and  Nation,  have  been  the  main  sources  of 
campaign  funds.1  Usuaily  such  a  corporation  has  kept  on  the  safe  side 
by  contributing  to  both  parties,  — somewhat  more  liberally  to  the  one  in 
power,  from  which  favors  are  the  more  likely  to  come  ;  but  of  course  it 
contributes  not  at  all  to  any  real  reform  party.  The  immense  contribu- 
tions from  such  sources  have'  been  a  chief  means  of  political  corruption 
in  campaigns.  Meantime,  the  people  have  to  pay  these  contributions 
indirectly  in  higher  prices,  —  since  the  amounts  are  charged  up  to 
"operating  expenses''1  by  the  corporations. 

This  public  corruption  does  not  come  in  any  considerable  degree  from 
ordinary  competitive  business.  Public  corruption  comes  from  the  desire 
to  secure  special  privilege.  The  public  service  corporation  in  the  city  is 
the  source  of  municipal  corruption:  the  ordinary  business  man,  who 
pays  a  bribe  perhaps  to  secure  a  city  contract,  is  rather  a  victim  than 
a  first  cause.  So  in  the  Nation,  the  railroads,  with  their  land  grants  or 
their  desire  to  evade  legal  control ;  and,  later,  the  fattened  trusts  which 
wish  to  preserve  some  tariff  "protection,"  are  the  source  of  national  cor- 
ruption. The  city  or  State  "boss"  who  "delivers  the  goods"  to  these 
privileged  corporations  seems  at  first  sight  the  front  and  substance  of 
the  corruption ;  but,  in  real  fact,  he  is  merely  an  agent,  permitted  to  pay 
himself  in  loot,  but  set  in  motion  and  protected  by  "  the  man  higher  up," 
the  respectable  head  of  great  business  interests.'2  Such  'large  interests 
draw  after  them  the  smaller  business  men,  sometimes  by  brutal  coercion, 
but  more  commonly  by  merely  playing  artfully  upon  the  phrase  that 
any  attempt  at  reform  "  hurts  business."  Almost  every  genuine  reform 
movement  in  America  so  far  has  found  its  chief  foe,  after  a  brief  run,  in 
this  despicable  phrase  (cf .  §  338) . 


lrrhe  law  of  1911  to  compel  publicity  by  the  National  Committees  of  all 
political  parties  as  to  the  source  of  all  their  funds  will  probably  help  correct 
this  evil.  During  the  following  election  (1912),  a  congressional  investigation 
proved  conclusively,  by  the  sworn  testimony  of  the  heads  of  the  great  "  trusts," 
that  there  really  had  existed  a  close  alliance  between  certain  privileged 
interests  and  guiding  forces  in  the  government,  such  as  the  general  public  had 
only  dimly  suspected. 

2  Every  student  should  read  Judge  Ben.  B.  Lindsay's  The  Beast  and  the 
Jungle, — the  best  and  most  dramatic  portrayal  in  literature  of  the  truth 
above  stated  (Doubleday,  1910,  $1.50). 


M/ 


CIVIL  SERVICE  671 


IV.     POLITICAL  OUTLINE,    1876-1898 

414.  From  1876  (§389)  to  1898,  the  political  narrative  can  be  fol- 
lowed best  in  connection  with  the  Civil  Service,  the  Tariff,  and  the  Cur- 
rency. The  Spanish  War  diverted  attention  to  questions  of  Imperialism 
(chapter  XVII).  But,  about  1904,  politics  centered  at  last  more  clearly 
upon  the  fundamental  issues  of  the  day  (chapter  XVIII) .  The  following 
table  will  be  convenient  for  reference. 

,  Reference  Table  for  Administrations,  1877-1913 

Kepitblican  ■  Democratic 

r  House  Democratic,  whole 

1877-1881.   Hayes  J  _  pe"°  .,     1Q-n 

*      |  Senate  Democratic,  1879- 

l      1881 
1881-1885.    Garfield  — Arthur  (House  Demo- 
cratic, 1883-1885,  almost  two  to 
one) 

1885-1889 Cleveland   (Senate   Re- 

publican) 
1889-1893.    Harrison      (House     Democratic, 
1891-1893,  by  231  to  88) 

1893-1897 Cleveland   (Senate  and 

House         Republican 
after  1894) 
1897-1901.    McKinley  ' 
1901-1905 .   McKinley  —  Boosevelt 
1905-1909.   Roosevelt 
1909-1913.    Taft    (House    Democratic    after 

1910) 
1913-  Wilson 

A.     Civil  Service  and  the  Tariff 

415.  Hayes  and  Civil  Service  Reform.  —  Until  the  days  of  the 
"muckraking1'  magazines  (the  "literature  of  exposure"),  and  of  the 
Roosevelt  administration  (§  454),  the  average  respectable  citizen  knew 
little  definitely  about  the  corruption  in  business  and  in  public  life,  and 
was  usually  inclined  to  dismiss  all  accusations  as  groundless.  One  evil, 
however,  had  long  been  too  evident  to  be  ignored.  In  1871,  public  opinion 
forced  Congress  unwillingly  to  pass  an  Act  to  reform  the  Civil  Service. 


672  THE   POLITICAL  STORY,    1876-1913 

A  commission  was  created,  to  formulate  and  administer  rules,  approved 
by  the  President,  for  appointment  to  civil  office  under  the  government 
rit  rather  than  f.r  political  spoils.  President  Grant  favored  the 
idea ;  but,  in  practice,  as  has  been  noted  above,  he  permitted  his  friends 
among  the  spoilsmen  in  Congress  to  thwart  the  Commission  and  make  its 
work  futile.  Then,  in  1874,  trusting  to  the  disgust  of  the  public  at  the 
failure,  Congress  refused  to  renew  the  appropriation  for  the  work. 

President  Hayes  was  more  ardent  for  reform.  His  few  removals  from 
office  were  mainly  to  get  rid  of  spoilsmen  at  the  head  of  important  bodies 
of  public  servants,  — as  in  the  New  York  Customs  House  ;  and  he  issued 
a  notable  "Civil  Service  Order"  forbidding  Federal  employees  to  take 
part  in  political  conventions  or  campaigns.  But  post-office  politicians 
jeered  the  order  ;  and  the  people  had  not  yet  learned  that  no  reform  was 
possible  except  upon  this  basis. 

416.  Election  of  1880.  —  In  1880,  two  minor  parties  were  in 
the  field,  with  real  convictions  but  insignificant  numbers, — 
the  Prohibitionists  and  the  Greenbackers  (§  392).  So  far  as 
the  two  main  parties  were  concerned,  the  campaign  was  a 
sti.  uggle  for  office  between  the  ins  and  the  outs,  to  a  degree 
unparalleled  since  1824.  Neither  party  took  any  definite 
stand  upon  any  question  of  the  day.  The  Republicans  elected 
James^At_GarJield,  on  their  record  as  "the  Grand  Old  Party 
tfiat  saved  the  Union  and  freed  the  slave." 1 

A  feature  of  the  campaign  was  the  open  pressure  upon  officeholders 
for  "  voluntary  contributions  "  to  the  campaign  funds.  Every  Federal 
official  received  a  circular  letter  from  the  Republican  National  Committee 
(signed  by  a  prominent  United  States  Senator)  assessing  him  at  a  certain 
per  cent  of  his  salary.  Officials  who  neglected  to  pay  were  "reported  " 
to  the  heads  of  their  departments  for  discipline.  The  vast  public  ser- 
vice, numbering  nearly  two  hundred  thousand  men,  wa's  turned  into  a 
machine  to  insure  victory  to  the  party  in  power.     Unable  to  bring  pres- 


1 A  desperate  attempt  in  the  Republican  convention  was  made  to  nominate 
ex-President  Grant ;  but  the  tradition  against  a  third  term  was  too  strong. 
Grant  received  from  302  to  312  votes  ballot  after  ballot ;  but  379  were  necessary, 
and  the  nomination  went  finally  to  a  "dark  horse."  No  serious  attempt  to 
secure  a  third  term  had  been  made  in  our  history  since  Jefferson's  refusal 
(§258). 


CIVIL  SERVICE  673 

sure  upon  Federal  officials,  the  Democrats  took  like  action  upon  office- 
holders in  those  State  governments  which  they  controlled.1 

417.  Garfield  and  the  Spoilsmen  ("Star  Route"  Scandal). — The 
new  President  found  a  third  of  his  time  taken  up  by  office- 
seekers.  They  "waylaid  him  when  he  ventured  from  the 
shelter  of  his  home,  and  followed  him  even  to  the  doors  of  the 
church  where  he  worshiped."  A  quarrel  over  patronage  led 
to  the  spectacular  resignation  of  the  two  New  York  Senators. 
Then,  four  months  after  the  inauguration,  the  President  was 
murdered  by  a  crazed  applicant  for  office ;  and  Chester  A.  Arthur 
succeeded  from  the  Vice-presidency. 

Meantime,  more  scandal!  T.  W.  Brady,  Assistant  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, an  official  who  had  held  over  from  Grant's  time,  had  conspired 
with  other  officials  and  with  a  group  of  contractors,  including  a  United 
States  Senator,  to  defraud  the  Government  of  half  a  million  dollars  a 
year.  On  certain  "  star  routes  "  secured  by  these  contractors,  the  legal 
compensation  had  been  enormously  increased  by  secret  agreements  for 
pretended  services,  and  the  surplus  was  divided  between  the  contractors 
and  the  officials.  The  Post-office  Department,  too,  had  been  led  into 
wildly  extravagant  policies,  in  order  to  afford  a  better  cover  for  such 
robberies.  The  trial  was  spectacular.2  Party  papers  impudently  white- 
washed the  offense ;  and  insolent  boasts  were  made  freely  that  no  jury 
would  convict  such  "  high  and  influential  men."  The  foreman  of  the 
jury  was  indicted  for  accepting  a  bribe.  The  guilt  of  the  officials  was 
shown  clearly ;  but  finally  the  bigger  criminals  did  all  escape,  through 
technicalities  and  the  delays  of  the  law. 


dr 


418.    The  Civil   Service  Act.  —  These  events   focused   atten- 
tion again  on  the  need  of  reform.     Congress,  however,  remained 


1  The  practice  was  not  new,  but  it  was  followed  up  in  this  campaign  with 
peculiar  shamelessness.  Such  collections  from  State  and  local  officers  had 
already  often  been  made  the  excuse  for  demanding  higher  salaries.  As 
always,  the  people  paid. 

2  When  the  investigation  began,  Brady  demanded  that  Garfield  call  it 
off;  and,  not  gaining  this  favor,  he  published  a  letter  written  by  Garfield 
during  the  campaign,  implicating  him  unpleasantly  in  the  collection  of  cam- 
paign contributions  from  officials. 


674  THE  POLITICAL  STORY,   1876-1913 

deaf  in  the  session  of  1881-1882 ;  and,  in  the  congressional 
elections  of  1882,  another  assessment  letter  to  Federal  officials, 
urging  them  to  contribute,  as  the  persons  "  most  interested  in 
the  success  of  the  party,"  was  signed  by  three  leading  Re- 
publican statesmen.  A  volunteer,  non-partisan  Civil  Service 
Reform  League  took  an  active  part  in  arousing  the  public  con- 
science during  the  campaign ;  and  popular  indignation  made 
itself  felt  in  the  elections.  The  next  session  of  the  chastened 
Congress  promptly  passed  the  Civil  Service  Act  (January,  1883), 
providing  that  vacancies  in  certain  classes  of  offices  should  be 
filled  in  future  from  applicants  whose  fitness  had  been  tested 
by  competitive  examination,  and  that  such  appointments  should 
be  revoked  afterward  only  "  for  cause."  A  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, to  oversee  the  workings  of  the  law,  was  established, 
—  to  consist  of  three  persons  appointed  by  the  President,  not 
more  than  two  of  the  three  from  one  political  party. 

It  was  not  expected  that  the  law  would  apply  to  heads  of  large 
collectorships  or  post  offices,  or  to  any  office  where  the  President's  nomina- 
tion requires  confirmation  hy  the  Senate ;  and,  indeed,  it  was  left  to  the 
President  to  classify  from  time  to  time  the  offices  to  be  protected.  Presi- 
dent Arthur  at  once  placed  some  14,000  positions  under  the  operation  of 
the  law.  Some  subsequent  extensions,  by  succeeding  Presidents,  will  be 
mentioned  in  the  narrative.  It  is  well  to  note  here,  however,  that,  by 
1900,  more  than  half  the  civil  service  had  been  so  "classified,"  —  all  the 
clerkships  in  the  departments  at  Washington,  subordinate  positions  in 
the  post  offices  and  customhouses,  and  the  railway  postal  clerks.  The 
offices  then  remaining  "unclassified"  and  unprotected  were  mainly  the 
small  (fourth-class)  post  offices,  with  a  salary  of  less  than  a  thousand 
dollars  a  year,  where  it  seemed  difficult  to  apply  appointment  by  examina- 
tion. President  Roosevelt,  long  identified  with  this  reform  (§  421),  added 
even  these  offices  in  the  Eastern  and  North  Central  States,  and  also 
applied  the  principles  of  the  law  to  appointments  to  the  consular  service. 
President  Taft  (§  455),  in  the  closing  months  of  his  term,  extended  the 
law  to  nearly  all  the  remaining  Federal  offices.  The  heads  of  important 
offices  remain  subject  to  the  spoils  system  ;  but  an  aroused  public  opinion 
minimizes  the  evil  even  there. 

419.  Cleveland  and  the  "  Mugwumps,"  1884.  —  For  nearly 
twenty  years,  Mr.  Blaine  had  been  the  idol  of  the  Republican 


TARIFF  AGITATION  675 

masses.  So  far,  however,  the  "  reform "  element  within  the 
party,  aided  by  the  ambition  of  rival  leaders,  had  kept  the  presi- 
dential nomination  from  him  (§  389) ;  but  in  the  Republican 
convention  of  1884  his  friends  were  in  control.  Large  numbers 
of  "  Mugwumps  "  (largely  college  men,  bent  upon  reform)  then 
deserted  the  party,  to  support  Grover  Cleveland,  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate.  As  a  courageous  reform  governor  of  New 
York,  Cleveland  had  attracted  attention  by  his  fearless  attitude 
toward  the  corrupt  Tammany  machine.  His  friends  jubilantly 
shouted  the  slogan,  — "  We  love  him  for  the  enemies  he  has 
made ; "  and  he  was  elected  as  a  reform  President,  with  the 
civil  service  issue  in  the  foreground.  For  the  first  time  since 
1860,  the  Democrats  controlled  both  executive  and  Congress. 

The  great  body  of  Democratic  politicians  were  secretly  or  actively  hos- 
tile to  civil  service  reform  ;  and  the  President's  position  was  more  difficult 
even  than  Jefferson's  had  been  three  generations  before  (§  255).  Spite  of 
the  recent  law,  every  Federal  official  was  still  a  Republican.  The  Demo- 
cratic office  seekers  were  ravening  from  their  quarter-century  fast ;  and 
their  pressure  upon  the  head  of  their  party  for  at  least  a  share  in  the  public 
service  was  overwhelming.  With  all  his  unquestioned  sincerity  and  firm- 
ness, the  President  gave  ground  before  this  spoils  spirit  far  enough  to  drive 
many  Mugwumps,  in  disgust,  back  to  the  Republicans.  Still,  the  admin- 
istration marks  a  notable  advance  for  a  non-partisan  service,  and  the 
definite  establishment,  in  practice,  of  the  principle  of  Hayes'  Civil  Service 
Order,  against  pernicious  partisanship  by  officials. 

420.  Tariff  Agitation,  1884-1888.  —  President  Cleveland's 
chief  work  was  in  committing  the  Democrats  to  tariff  reduc- 
tion, —  though  results  were  slow  to  follow.  In  1873,  Congress 
had  enacted  a  horizontal  reduction  of  ten  per  cent  on  the  war 
tariffs ;  but  the  panic  of  the  same  yea,r  was  ascribed  loudly  by 
protectionists  to  tliat  threatened  decrease,  and  the  law  was  at 
once  repealed.  When  Cleveland  became  President,  the  war 
tariffs  were  still  in  force.  By  the  trend  of  our  history,  too, 
high  protection  had  become  associated  in  the  thought  of  the 
North  with  the  preservation  of  the  Union  and  the  freeing  of 
the  slave,  —  a  habit  of  thought  of  which  the  special  interests, 
thriving  on  protection,  knew  how  to  take  shrewd  advantage. 


676  THE   POLITICAL  STORY,    1876-1913 

With  dogged  persistence,  Cleveland  clung  to  the  task  of 
educating  his  party.  In  message  after  message,  he  called  at- 
tention to  the  dangerous  piling  up  of  the  surplus  from  the 
needless  revenue;  to  the  consequent  opportunities  for  extrava- 
gance and  corruption  in  appropriations ;  and  especially  to  the 
unjust  burdens  upon  the  poorer  classes  of  society  from  such 
taxation.  In  December,  1887,  his  message  to  Congress  was 
given  up  wholly  to  this  one  topic,  denouncing  the  existing 
tariff  fiercely  as  "  vicious "  and  "  inequitable."  During  the 
following  summer,  the  House  was  spurred  into  passing  the 
Mills  Bill,1  placing  a  few  important  articles  on  the  free-list 
and  reducing  the  average  tax  from  47  per  cent  to  40 ;  but  the 
measure  failed  in  the  Senate 2  —  after  the  unfavorable  election 
in  the  fall. 

In  the  "  educational  campaign  w  of  1888,  for  the  first  time 
for  almost  sixty  years,  the  tariff  was  the  leading  issue  before 
the  people.  Mr.  Blaine  had  replied  to  Cleveland's  epoch- 
making  message  of  '87  by  a  striking  "  interview,"  cabled  from 
Paris,  setting  up  protection  as  the  desirable  permanent  policy. 
The  Republican  party  rallied  to  this  standard.  The  platform 
declared  for  reduction  of  the  remaining  internal  taxes  (on 
whisky),  so  as  to  remove  opportunity  to  reduce  tariff 
income.  Orators  like  William  McKinley  represented  tariff 
reduction  as  "  unpatriotic "  and  "  inspired  by  our  foreign 
rivals";  and  even  the  Republicans  of  the  Northwest,  where 
Republican  conventions  in  State  after  State  had  been  calling 
for  reform,  were  whipped  into  line  by  the  plea  that  the  tariff, 
if  revised  at  all,  should  at  least  be  revised  "  by  its  friends." 


1  Roger  Q.  Mills  of  Texas  was  the  chief  author  of  the  measure  and  one  of 
the  few  real  tariff  reformers  of  the  period.  The  President  enforced  his  argu- 
ment for  the  hill  hy  a  despotic  use  of  his  power  over  congressional  patronage 
(§326). 

2  The  Senate  "  substituted  "  a  wholly  different  measure,  by  amendment, — 
to  which  the  House  refused  to  agree.  This  use  of  the  Senate's  power  to 
amend,  hut  not  to  originate,  revenue  hills,  is  a  clear  infraction  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Constitution ;  hut  it  has  been  practiced  many  times. 


TARIFF  AGITATION  677 

The  debate  was  marked  by  a  notable  shift  of  ground  on  the  part  of 
protectionists.  Clay  and  the  earlier  protectionists  advocated  protection 
for  "  infant  industries,"  as  a  temporary  policy.  This  argument  hardly 
applied  now  that  those  industries  had  become  dominating  influences  in 
the  country.  Greeley,  in  the  forties  and  fifties,  had  modified  it  into  a 
plea  for  protection  to  higher  wages  for  American  workingmen  compared 
with  European  laborers  (§  321).  This  now  became  the  general  argu- 
ment. It  failed  to  take  account  of  the  higher  cost  of  living  to  American 
workmen  because  of  the  tariff;  nor  was  evidence  submitted  to  show 
that  the  protected  industries  really  paid  higher  wages  in  return  for  their 
tariff  privileges. 


.„ 


421.  Harrison's  Administration  and  Civil  Service.  —  The  Republicans 
elected  Benjamin  Harrison,  though  he  received  100,000  fewer  votes  in  the 
country  at  large  than  did  Cleveland.  The  Republican  manager,  Matthew 
Quay,  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  was  a  noted  spoilsman,  and  had  been 
already  under  suspicion  of  corruption  in  various  offices  held  by  him. 
"  Protected  "  manufacturers  were  called  on  for  huge  contributions  to  the 
Republican  funds ;  and,  according  to  general  belief,  money  was  spent 
more  freely  than  ever  before  in  buying  votes  in  doubtful  States.  One 
scandal,  made  public  a  little  later,  was  long  remembered.  A  member  of 
the  National  Republican  Committee  wrote  to  political  lieutenants  in  In- 
diana, on  which  State  it  was  thought  the  election  would  turn,  —  "Divide 
the  voters  into  blocks  of  five,  and  put  a  trusted  man  with  the  necessary 
funds  in  charge  of  each  five,  and  make  him  responsible  that  none  get 
away  and  that  all  vote  our  ticket." 

The  Republican  platform  had  promised  an  extension  of  civil  service 
reform ;  but  for  months  after  the  victory,  the  spoils  system  was  rampant. 
Clarkson,  the  Assistant  Postmaster-General,  earned  the  title  of  "the 
Headsman,"  by  decapitating  30,000  postmasters  in  the  first  year  ;  and, 
amid  the  applause  of  the  Senate,  Ingalls  of  Kansas  declared,  —  "The 
purification  of  politics  is  an  iridescent  dream ;  the  Decalogue  and  the 
Golden  Hide  have  no  place  in  a  political  campaign.'1'1  This  attitude  of 
prominent  leaders  was  rebuked,  however,  by  the  people  in  the  Congres- 
sional elections  of  1890,  and  President  Harrison  was  thus  encouraged  to 
break  with  the  spoilsmen.  He  rendered  a  great  service,  also,  by  appoint- 
ing to  the  Civil  Service  Commission  Theodore  Roosevelt  of  New  York. 
This  fearless  young  reformer  at  once  injected  new  energy  into  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  law,  and  rallied  a  fresh  enthusiasm  among  the  people 
to  its  support  by  his  vigorous  use  of  language.  Hitherto,  the  spoilsmen 
had  enjoyed  a  monopoly  of  strong  language,  and  had  reviled  and  ridiculed 
the  mild-mannered  gentlemen  of  the  Commission  at  will :  Roosevelt  gave 


678  THE   POLITICAL  STORY,    1876-1913 

back  epithet  for  epithet,  with  interest, — affirming,  on  one  occasion,  that 
a  great  part  of  the  political  contributions  extorted  from  reluctant  officials 
was  "retained  by  the  jackals  who  collected  it." 

422.  The  McKinley  Tariff  of  1890  raised  rates  even  above 
the  war  standard.  The  committee  in  charge  of  the  framing  of 
the  bill  held  "  public  hearings,"  at  which  any  one  interested 
might  appear,  to  present  his  needs  and  views.  In  practice,  this 
resulted  in  hearing  the  claims  of  the  scores  of  great  manufac- 
turers, but  not  at  all  of  the  millions  of  small  consumers.1  The 
special  interests  really  framed  the  law.  Thus  the  Binding 
Twine  trust  secured  the  power  to  tax  every  sheaf  of  the 
farmer's  grain,  by  a  tariff  on  twine,  in  spite  of  earnest  but  less 
organized  opposition  by  the  farmers  of  the  country.  A  special 
effort,  however,  was  made  to  conciliate  the  farmers  by  a  new 
class  of  duties  on  agricultural  products,  as  protection  against 
competition  by  Canadian  farmers. 

A  novel  feature  of  the  bill  was  its  "  reciprocity  "  provisions.  Foreign 
countries,  incensed  at  our  exclusion  of  their  products,  were  threatening 
retaliatory  tariffs  on  American  foodstuffs  ;  and  our  farmers  seemed  in 
danger  of  a  serious  indirect  loss.  Mr.  Blaine,  a  less  extreme  protection- 
ist than  the  leaders  in  control,  had  criticised  the  bill  sharply,  in  its  orig- 
inal form,  on  the  ground  that  it  failed  to  "open  the  market  to  another 
bushel  of  grain  or  another  barrel  of  pork."  Finally,  it  was  arranged  that 
the  President  might  provide  by  treaty  for  the  free  admission  of  raw  sugar, 
coffee,  molasses,  and  hides,  from  any  'country  which  would  admit  free 
our  products.  Some  treaties  of  this  nature  were  afterward  negotiated 
with  Central  and  South  American  countries. 

A  sudden  fall  in  grain  values  seemed  to  show  that  the  prom- 
ised protection  to  agriculture  wras  a  delusion,  while  a  marked 
and  immediate  rise  in  prices  on  manufactured  goods2  made 
the  law  highly  unpopular.  The  congressional  elections  of 
1890   witnessed   a  "landslide"   for  the  Democrats.     Various 


1  Cf .  John  Randolph's  warning ;  §  279. 

2  The  rise  reached  many  forms  of  foodstuffs.  Thus  canned  goods  were 
raised  because  the  canners  had  to  pay  more  for  tin  plate,  on  which  the  tariff 
had  been  doubled. 


TARIFF  AGITATION  679 


House  bills  for  tariff  reduction,  however,  were  buried  in  the 
hold-over  Senate ;  and  the  surplus  in  the  Treasury  had  been 
dissipated  by  a  policy  of  building  costly  war  ships  and  by  a 
huge  increase  in  pensions  for  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  War. 

Cleveland's  first  administration  had  witnessed  a  savage  raid  on  the 
Treasury  in  the  form  of  thousands  of  special  pension  bills.  Many  of 
these  applied  to  meritorious  cases  which  even  the  generous  provisions  of 
the  general  law  did  not  reach  ;  but  hundreds  of  others  were  gross  frauds, 
which,  in  many  cases,  had  already  been  exposed  by  the  regular  pension 
bureau.  Cleveland  vetoed  233  private  pension  bills  ; l  but  still  the  flood 
which  became  law  swelled  the  pension  list  enormously.  Then  Harrison's 
administration  saw  the  pension  rolls  doubled  by  a  new  general  law,  with 
an  increase  of  annual  expenditure  for  this  purpose  from  88  millions  to 
159  millions.  The  same  four  years  (1889-1893)  saw  the  yearly  expendi- 
ture for  the  navy  mount  from  17  to  33  millions.  The  Fifty-first  Congress 
was  the  first  "Billion-Dollar  Congress." 

Philanthropic  enthusiasts  had  striven  to  secure  the  Treasury  surplus  for 
the  education  of  the  Negro,  —  whose  ignorance,  it  was  argued,  was  a 
National  peril,  and  to  whom  the  Nation  owed  compensation  for  the 
miseries  of  slavery.  To  avoid  constitutional  objections,  it  was  proposed 
to  distribute  a  vast  appropriation  among  the  States.  To  reach  the  Negro 
especially,  the  proportion  to  each  State  was  to  be  graded  by  its  illiteracy. 
States-rights  men  were  jealous  of  such  exercise  of  power  by  the  Federal 
government ;  but  a  bill  passed  one  or  the  other  House  on  several  occa- 
sions, in  the  eighties.  The  New  South,  however,  was  growing  more 
and  more  able  to  bear  its  own  burdens,  and  the  disappearance  of  the  sur- 
plus carried  this  agitation  with  it. 

423.  Cleveland's  Second  Administration.  —  The  rebound 
against  the  McKinley  Tariff  elected  Cleveland  again  in  1892. 
The  Democratic  platform  had  declared  frankly  for  a  tariff  "  for 
revenue  only,"  asserting  that  "  protection"  of  specially  favored 

1  In  other  respects  also,  Cleveland  gave  a  new  vigor  to  the  veto  power. 
President  Johnson,  in  his  Reconstruction  quarrel  with  Congress,  vetoed  21 
bills,  — many  more  than  any  predecessor,  though  several  of  these  vetoes  were 
overridden.  Grant  used  the  veto  43  times  in  his  two  terms.  Up  to  Cleve- 
land's accession,  there  had  been  in  all  only  132  Presidential  vetoes.  In  his 
first  term  Cleveland  used  the  power  301  times  —  apart  from  pension  matters 
three  times  as  freely  as  any  previous  President.  Cf.  §  301  for  summary  of 
earlier  history  of  the  veto. 


680  THE  POLITICAL  STORY,   1876-1913 

industries  by  the  government  was  unconstitutional.  During 
the  campaign,  however,  the  leaders  felt  impelled  to  promise 
that  reductions  from  existing  rates  should  be  made  gradually, 
so  as  to  permit  business  to  readjust  itself  safely.  Moreover, 
tariff  reform  was  now  hampered  by  currency  questions,  which 
had  thrust  themselves  into  the  foreground  (§  425  ff.).  A 
"  Wilson  Bill  "  did  pass  the  House  in  form  fairly  satisfactory  to 
tariff  reformers ;  but  in  the  Senate  (where  the  Democrats  had 
a  bare  majority  anyway)  enough  members  deserted,  in  order  to 
secure  protection  for  special  interests  which  they  represented,1 
so  as  to  transform  the  bill  into  what  President  Cleveland 
called  bluntly  a  measure  of  "  party  perfidy." 

Cleveland  felt  constrained  to  let  the  bill  become  law  —  as  the  best 
thing  attainable  —  though  he  would  not  sign  it.  It  reduced  the  average 
of  the  duties  from  49  to  40  per  cent ;  and  it  was  accompanied  by  a  sop  to 
the  radicals  in  the  shape  of  a  tax  of  two  per  cent  on  all  incomes  over 
§4000.  But  this  intended  compensation  to  the  poorer  classes  was  imme- 
diately destroyed.  Tlie  Supreme  Court  declared  the  income  tax  unconsti- 
tutional.2 

424.  The  Dingley  Tariff.  —  The  Eepublicans  won  the  election 
of  1896  on  the  "sound  money"  issue  (§  430);  but  President 

1  Sugar,  in  Louisiana;  iron,  in  West  Virginia  and  Alabama;  etc.  The 
Senate  lost  public  confidence  in  great  measure,  from  the  disclosure  that  prom- 
inent members  had  speculated  in  stocks  whose  values  would  be  affected  by 
the  law  they  were  engaged  in  framing.  Thus  Senator  Quay  confessed  that  he 
had  bought  sugar  stock  "  for  a  rise." 

2  On  the  ground  that  it  was  a  direct  tax,  and  therefore  to  be  collected  only 
by  apportionment  among  the  States  according  to  population.  Such  taxes, 
however,  had  been  collected  during  the  Civil  War.  In  1895,  the  question 
came  up  before  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  that  body  divided  four  to  four.  On 
the  recovery  of  a  sick  Justice,  the  case  was  reargued.  The  member  before 
absent  now  voted  for  the  tax ;  but  Justice  Shiras,  who  had  before  voted  for  it, 
now  changed  to  the  opposition,  and  made  the  adverse  vote  five  to  four.  So 
grave  an  authority  as  Professor  Davis  Rich  Dewey  does  not  hesitate  to  say  : 
—  "  The  country  was  so  astonished  by  these  divisions  of  opinion  that  interest 
in  the  tax  itself  was  lost  sight  of  in  the  revelations  of  fickleness  and  uncer- 
tainty in  the  highest  court  of  the  land."  It  was  particularly  unfortunate  that 
such  shiftiness  should  have  operated  as  a  protection  to  the  wealthier  classes 
only. 


TARIFF  AGITATION  681 

McKinley  claimed  the  victory  as  a  mandate  to  renew  the  high 
protection  policy  with  which  he  had  personally  identified  him- 
self. Accordingly,  a  special  session  of  Congress  enacted  the 
Dingley  Tariff,  raising  the  average  rate  to  57  per  cent,  —  much 
the  highest  point  reached  np  to  that  time. 

These  exorbitant  rates  were  secured  by  the  extreme  protectionists  in 
return  for  the  insertion  of  a  provision  for  wider  reciprocity.  It  was  agreed 
that,  during  the  two  years  following,  the  President  might  make  treaties 
with  foreign  countries,  abating  a  fifth  of  the  Dingley  rates  on  their  prod- 
ucts, in  return  for  concessions  by  them  to  American  commerce.  Such 
rates  would  still  have  been  almost  up  to  the  McKinley  Tariff  rates  ;  and 
the  Republican  masses  regarded  the  higher  figures  of  the  Dingley  bill 
mainly  as  a  club  to  force  reciprocity.  But  when  President  McKinley, 
from  time  to  time,  submitted  seven  such  treaties  to  the  Senate  for  ratifi- 
cation, that  body,  with  an  extreme  of  bad  faith,  hearkening  only  to  the 
special  interests  which  controlled  the  seats  or  fortunes  of  many  members, 
failed  to  ratify.  As  with  the  preceding  tariff,  the  bargain  by  which  high 
rates  had  been  secured  was  broken  ;  and  again  the  loss  fell  upon  the  poor. 

Wherever  the  tariff  did  shield  a  raw  material  from  real  foreign  compe- 
tition (as  with  wool),  it  gave  a  correspondingly  higher  protection  to  the 
manufacturer  who  was  to  use  that  material.  Thus  the  wearer  of  woolen 
goods  paid  a  double  tax,  —  one  to  the  wool  grower,  and  another  to  the 
manufacturer.  But  as  a  rule,  those  items  which  had  been  added  to  the 
bill  with  a  pretence  of  protecting  the  farmers  proved  again  deceptive.  A 
duty  was  placed  on  hides ;  but  the  advantage  was  monopolized  by  the 
packing  houses.  The  cattle  raiser  got  none  of  it.  He  had  to  sell,  as  be- 
fore, to  the  trust  at  its  own  price  (§  409)  ;  but  the  trust  could  now  make 
the  shoe  manufacturer  pay  more  for  leather.  And  the  only  noticeable 
result  to  the  cattle  raiser  —  and  to  every  other  ' '  ultimate  consumer ' '  — 
was  a  higher  price  for  shoes  and  harness.  Critics  pointed  out,  too,  that 
the  prohibitive  duties  on  many  foreign  imports  made  it  easier  for  monopo- 
listic combinations  to  control  prices  and  output.  The  years  following  the 
enactment  of  the  Dingley  Tariff  were  just  the  years  of  most  rapid  devel- 
opment of  such  monopolies.  "The  tariff  is  the  mother  of  the  trusts" 
became  a  popular  cry. 

Manufactures,  of  course,  were  tremendously  stimulated. 
They  now  used  most  of  the  raw  material  produced  in  America — 
which,  therefore,  was  no  longer  dependent  upon  a  foreign 
market.     Indeed   American  mills  forged  their  way  into  the 


682  THE  POLITICAL  STORY,   1876-1913 

markets  of  the  world,  and  underbid  English  and  German 
manufacturers  in  Russia,  India,  China,  and  Australia. 
American  machinery  even  invaded  France  and  England.  To 
do  this,  the  American  manufacturer  sold  his  goods  cheaper 
abroad  than  at  home,  and,  indeed,  was  enabled  to  undersell  the 
foreign  manufacturer  abroad  by  means  of  the  unreasonable 
profits  wrung  from  the  American  consumer. 

For  a  time  the  country  was  entranced  by  the  appearance  of 
"  prosperity."  But  gradually  the  idea  gained  ground  that  this 
was  a  manufacturer's  prosperity,  paid  for  by  the  consumer. 
The  cost  of  living  rose  so  rapidly  as  to  become  a  byword.  Be- 
tween 1896  and  1904  it  was  computed  to  have  increased  a 
fourth ;  and  that  was  by  no  means  the  end.1  This  amounted, 
of  course,  to  a  savage  cut  in  wages  and  all  fixed  incomes,  and 
rapidly  created  a  serious  problem  for  people  of  small  'means, 
—  especially  after  about  1906,  when  the  effects  had  become 
most  marked.2 

/  B.      Currency  and  "Free  Silver" 

425.  Silver  "demonetized."  — From  1890  to  1900,  all  other 
ublic  questions  were  cast  into  the  background  by  an  un- 
fortunate agitation  for  "  free  silver,"  —  which,  indeed,  had  been 
a  disturbing  factor  for  fifteen  years  before.  Until  1873,  any 
one  could  present  gold  or  silver  bullion  at  a  government  mint, 
and  receive  back  the  value  in  coin,  less  a  small  fee.  A 
law  of  1834  had  fixed  the  ratio  for  coinage  at  sixteen  to  one. 
That  is,  one  ounce  of  gold  was  worth  sixteen  ounces  of  silver 
in  the  market ;  and  so  the  silver  dollar  was  made  sixteen  times 

1  The  more  conservative  figures  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  place  the  increase 
in  the  period  1890-1909  at  26£  per  cent. 

2  For  the  final  stage  (to  this  writing)  of  the  tariff  controversy,  see  §  457. 
Of  course  the  tariff  is  only  one  of  several  factors  in  the  recent  rise  of 

prices.  Another  factor  is  the  increased  volume  of  gold  —  in  which  prices  are 
measured  (§  435,  close).  But  this  last  factor  operates  all  over  the  world,  —  in 
England,  presumably,  as  strongly  as  in  America.  The  rise  of  prices  in  England, 
however,  has  been  only  about  a  third  of  that  in  the  United  States. 


"FREE   SILVER"  683 

as  heavy  as  the  gold  dollar.  After  1850,  the  gold  discoveries 
in  California  slightly  cheapened  the  value  of  gold;  and  the 
little  silver  that  was  mined  between  that  time  and  1870  could 
be  sold  more  profitably  for  use  in  the  arts  than  at  the  mint,  so 
that  very  little  silver  was  coined.1 

But,  about  1870,  new  silver  mines  in  Nevada  and  Colorado 
began  to  flood  the  markets  with  silver.  Then,  in  1873,  Con- 
gress "  demonetized  "  silver,  —  ceasing  to  authorize  its  coinage, 
except  in  small  quantities  for  the  oriental  trade,  and  refusing 
legal-tender  character  at  home  to  these  "trade  dollars."  At 
about  the  same  time,  European  countries  began  to  abandon 
— "Hmfitaljflyn"  for  an  exclusive  gold  standard.  The  increased 
output  of  silver,  together  with  this  decreased  demand,  forced 
down  its  value  rapidly.2  The  mine  owners  now  called  vocifer- 
ously for  coinage  at  the  old  rate.  Moreover,  the  farmers  of  the 
West  and  many  ardent  reformers  were  persuaded  that  the 
"  crime  of  '73  "  had  been  manipulated  by  the  money  monop- 
olists of  Wall  Street  to  reduce  the  volume  of  the  currency, 
and  so  enhance  the  value  of  their  capital  at  the  expense  of  the 
debtor  class.  This  conviction  was  emphasized  by  the  money 
stringency  of  the  panic  years,  1873-1878.  Some  advocates 
of  silver  believed  that  its  unlimited  coinage  by  the  United 
States  would  insure  a  sufficient  currency,  and  would  restore 
silver  to  its  old  market  value ;  but  the  larger  body  of  its  sup- 
porters were  animated  by  the  crude  fallacies  of  fiat  money  such 
as  had  inspired  the  old  Greenback  party. 

It  was  quite  true  that  there  was  not  enough  gold  coined  to  make  a 
proper  basis  for  the  growing  business  of  the  country.  Consequently, 
money  was  appreciating  and  prices  depreciating.  Creditors  profited; 
debtors,  like  farmers  with  mortgages  to  meet,  suffered. 

All  reformers  saw  these  evils.     Some  magnified  them  unduly,  and 

1  In  1870,  the  market  ratio  of  the  metals  was  15.57.  A  silver  dollar  would 
have  been  worth  $1.03,  and  they  had  all  been  melted  down  for  this  profit. 

2  By  1876,  the  ratio  of  silver  to  gold  had  fallen  to  17.87;  and  by  1893  to 
28.25.  At  the  latter  rate,  a  silver  "  dollar  "  of  the  old  weight  was  worth  56 
cents  in  gold. 


684  THE   POLITICAL  STORY,    1876-1913 

impulsively  caught  at  the  proffered  remedy  of  making  silver  a  legal 
tender  at  the  old  rate.  Others  felt  that  such  a  depreciation  of  the  coin- 
age would  entail  all  the  disasters  of  cheap  money  and  bring  in  evils 
worse  than  those  to  be  cured.  This  unhappy  division  in  the  ranks  of 
the  reformers  seriously  delayed  correction  of  other  more  fundamental 
troubles  in  American  life. 


A'd 


426.  The  Bland  Act,1  of  1878,  ordered  the  coinage  of  silver  dollars,  at 
a  fixed  weight,  then  worth  about  90  cents  in  bullion,  to  the  amount  of 
from  two  millions  to  four  millions  a  month.  Such  dollars  did  not  pass 
into  circulation  ;  but,  in  the  Treasury  vaults,  they  formed  the  basis  for  a 
new  kind  of  Treasury  notes  (silver  certificates),  redeemable  only  in  this 
specie. 

During  the  next  twelve  years,  three  fourths  of  a  billion  of  dollars  in 
such  paper  money  was  added  to  the  currency  of  the  country.  Toward 
the  close  of  the  period,  silver  slumped  in  the  market  rapidly,  until  the 
coined  dollar  was  worth  only  about  75  cents.  In  the  same  twelve  years, 
nearly  half  a  billion  of  gold  had  been  coined  ;  but  now  this  began  to  leave 
the  country  rapidly,  and  many  people  feared  that  once  more  "  poor 
money "  would  "drive  out  good.*'  The  silver  advocates,  on  the  con- 
trary, were  sure  that  silver  slumped  only  because  the  government  refused 
to  take  all  that  was  offered,  and  they  insisted  that  the  increase  in  cur- 
rency had  not  kept  pace  with  the  marvelous  growth  of  business. 

427.  The  Populists.  —  Both  Republicans  and  Democrats  so 
far  had  shirked  a  positive  position  as  to  silver.  Accordingly, 
a  new  party  sprang  into  prominence.  The  Grangers  (§  399) 
had  been  succeeded  by  the  Farmers'  Alliance,  which,  however, 
kept  out  of  partisan  politics  until  about  1890,  though  it  had 
used  powerful  influence  within  both  parties  for  free  silver. 
Then,  fused  with  the  Knights  of  Labor  (§  445),  it  formed  the 
Populist  party,  with  a  platform  calling  for  the  unlimited  coin- 
age of  silver  at  16  to  1,  for  a  graduated  income  tax  (§  423), 
for  postal  savings  banks,  and  for  government  ownership  of 
railroads  and  of  other  natural  monopolies.     In  the  Presidential 

1  Representative  Bland,  of  Missouri,  had  secured  from  the  House  an  abso- 
lute "16  to  1 "  bill.  The  more  cautious  Senate  added  the  restrictions  as  to 
weight  and  amount.  Even  in  this  form,  President  Hayes  vetoed  the  measure ; 
but  it  became  law  over  his  veto. 


ELECTION  OF   1896  685 

election  of  1892,  General  Weaver,  the  Populist  candidate, 
secured  22  electors,  with  more  than  a  million  votes,  to  about 
five  and  a  half  millions  to  each  of  the  main  parties.  Two 
years  earlier,  the  party  had  captured  several  State  govern- 
ments in  the  West  and  South,  and  had  sent  forty  representa- 
tives to  Congress. 

428.  The  Sherman  Act  of  1890  replaced  the  Bland  Act.  It  was  a 
slight  gain  to  the  silver  men.  The  Treasury  was  ordered  to  buy  silver  in 
the  market,  four  and  a  half  million  ounces  each  month,  paying  for  it  in 
Treasury  notes  which  should  be  redeemable  on  demand  in  either  silver  or 
gold.  Enough  of  the  purchased  silver  was  to  be  coined  to  redeem  these 
new  notes. 

The  sudden  increase  in  demand  raised  silver  for  a  brief  time  almost  to 
its  ratio  with  gold  ;  but  soon  it  fell  away  again  ;  and  in  1893,  when  the 
British  government  demonetized  silver  in  India,  it  shrank  to  a  lower 
point  than  ever  before  (note  to  §  425).  Gold  now  was  exported  with  a 
rush,  and  that  remaining  in  the  country  was  hoarded. 

429.  The  Crash  of  1893. 1  —  A  periodic  crisis,  due  to  over  investment 
on  credit,  seems  to  have  been  about  due ;  but  undoubtedly  it  was  has- 
tened by  widespread  distrust  of  the  currency  and  by  uncertainty  as  to 

1  The  law  which  had  brought  about  Resumption  in  1879  (§  392),  had  made 
it  the  duty  of  the  President  to  maintain  a  gold  reserve  in  the  Treasury  suffi- 
cient to  meet  any  paper  money  presented  for  redemption.  This  reserve  was 
the  basis  for  the  credit  which  kept  paper  at  par.  Now,  in  a  few  months, 
nearly  half  the  reserve  was  drawn  out  (down  to  68  millions)  by  Treasury 
notes  presented  for  redemption.  The  panic  had  cut  down  the  government's 
revenues,  so  that  no  funds  were  available  with  which  to  buy  gold ;  and  so 
President  Cleveland  had  to  increase  the  National  debt  by  selling  bonds.  The 
banks  paid  gold  for  these  bonds  ;  but,  owing  to  the  clumsy  confusion  of  our 
currency  laws,  they  drew  most  of  this  gold  out  of  the  Treasury,  just  before- 
hand, by  presenting  Treasury  notes  there.  "What  was  poured  in  through 
the  funnel  was  first  drawn  out  through  the  bunghole."  By  a  quaint  feature 
of  the  law,  too,  the  Treasury  notes  had  to  be  at  once  reissued.  Thus,  when 
the  government  had  again  to  sell  bonds,  the  same  process  could  be  repeated 
with  the  same  currency, — in  the  dizziest  of  vicious  circles,  —  so  that  to 
maintain  a  balance  of  a  few  millions  of  gold  the  President  had  to  sell  264 
millions  in  bonds.  To  lessen  the  evil,  he  cailed  the  Wall  Street  bankers  into 
conference,  to  pledge  them  to  take  the  bonds  without  withdrawing  the  gold  to 
do  it  with;  but  he  was  at  once  accused  of  granting  the  money  power  unrea- 
sonable secret  privileges. 


686  THE   POLITICAL  STORY,    1876-1913 

further  action  by  Congress.  Creditors  began  to  insist  on  payments  in 
gold.  Nearly  six  hundred  banks  closed  their  doors,  and  more  than  fifteen 
thousand  firms  went  to  the  wall,  with  losses  amounting  to  a  third  of  a 
billion.  Industry  was  prostrated  as  at  no  previous  panic.  Farmers  lost 
their  homes,  and  the  improvements  of  years,  on  small  mortgages.  Cities 
were  thronged  with  hundreds  of  thousands  of  unemployed  and  desperate 
men.  Every  large  place  had  its  free  "  soup  kitchen,"  and  many  towns, 
for  the  first  time  in  America,  opened  "'relief  works,"  to  provide  the 
starving  with  employment.  The  social  unrest  found  outlet  in  dangerous 
strikes  and  in  the  ominous  phenomena  of  "  Coxey's  Army  "  (§  446  a). 

430.  The  Campaign  of  1896.  —  President  Cleveland  had 
alienated  the  radical  wing  of  the  Democratic  party  by  uncom- 
promising hostility  to  silver  legislation,1  and  in  1896  the  party 
split  on  that  issue.  The  National  Convention  afforded  a  dra- 
matic scene.  William  J.  Bryan  of  Nebraska,  a  young  man, 
hardly  known  in  the  East,  swept  the  great  assembly  resist- 
lessly  by  an  irnpassioned  speech  of  splendid  oratory  and  deep 
sincerity.  The  contest  between  silver  and  gold  he  pictured  as 
a  contest  of  wealth  against  the  struggling  masses.  Turning  to 
the  "gold"  delegates,  he  exclaimed,  "You  shall  not  press 
down  upon  the  brow  of  labor  this  crown  of  thorns.  You  shall 
not  crucify  mankind  upon  this  cross  of  gold."  With  tremen- 
dous enthusiasm,  the  Convention  declared,  two  to  one,  for  the 
"  unlimited  coinage  of  both  silver  and  gold  at  the  ratio  of  six- 
teen to  one,"  and  nominated  Bryan  for  the  presidency.2  A 
strong  faction  of  the  party,  however,  took  the  name  of  "  Gold 

1  It  is,  perhaps,  fairer  to  say  that  this  attitude  seemed  to  the  Radicals  one 
more  proof  of  Cleveland's  alliance  with  the  "  Money  Power,"  seen  also,  as  it 
appeared  to  them,  in  his  policy  in  the  Chicago  strike  (§  446  6),  in  his  fiscal 
arrangements  (§  428),  and  in  his  delay  in  calling  a  special  session  to  carry  out 
his  tariff  program. 

2  To  men  of  conservative  tendencies  and  associations,  the  new  leader 
seemed  a  demagogue  and  adventurer.  Later,  they  tried  strenuously  to  re- 
gard him  as  a  jest.  But  a  new  force  had  come  into  American  life.  William 
J.  Bryan,  defeated  three  times  for  the  presidency,  still  molded  public  opinion 
during  the  coming  years  as  only  one  or  two  Presidents  have  ever  done,  until 
his  principles,  then  so  revolutionary,  outside  the  free  silver  heresy,  have  be- 
come the  common  property  of  every  political  platform.     Cf.  §  458. 


ELECTION  OF   1896  687 

Democrats  "  and  nominated  a  ticket  of  their  own ;  while  many 
more  of  like  feeling  voted  the  Republican  ticket,  subordinating 
tariff  reform  to  their  conviction  of  the  need  of  "  sound  money." 
The  Republicans  had  nominated  William  McKinley  on  an 
antisilver  platform.  The  "  Silver  Republicans  "  of  the  West- 
ern States  formally  seceded  from  the  organization;  but  this 
movement  was  much  less  important  than  the  Democratic  split. 

The  Democratic  campaign  was  hampered  by  lack  of  money; 
but  the  most  was  made  of  Mr.  Bryan's  oratory.  Candidates 
had  previously  taken  small  part  in  campaigning.  Mr.  Bryan 
traveled  eighteen  thousand  miles  and  spoke  to  vast  numbers  of 
people.  The  Republican  coffers  were  supplied  lavishly  by  the 
moneyed  interests  of  the  country  ;  and  the  campaign  was  man- 
aged by  Mark  Hanna,  a  typical  representative  of  the  big  busi- 
ness interests.  Workingmen  were  intimidated  by  posted  notices 
that  the  factories  would  close  if  the  Democrats  won;  and 
many  orders  with  manufacturers  were  given  with  a  provision 
for  cancellation  in  like  case.  This  fear  of  business  catastrophe 
in  case  of  the  election  of  Bryan  (a  fear  largely  manufactured) 
was  a  chief  factor  in  the  Republican  success.  But  as  Cleve- 
land had  committed  the  Democratic  party  to  tariff  reform,  so 
Bryan  now  committed  it  to  the  cause  of  the  masses  against 
the  "special  interests"   and  " privileged"  capital. 

Just  at  this  point  came  an  interruption  to  normal  develop- 
ment, —  the  Spanish  War  and  the  question  of  imperialism. 

For  Further  Reading. — (On  this  chapter  and  the  next  two.) — ■ 
Dewey's  National  Problems;  Latane's  America  the  World  Poicer ; 
Spark's  National  Development. 

Commons,  Trade  Unionism  and  Labor  Problems;  Bulletins  of  Com- 
missioner of  Labor,  51,  53,  59  (on  prices  and  wages)  ;  Adams  and 
Sumner,  Labor  Problems;  Bemis'  "The  Homestead  Strike"  (Journal 
Political  Economy,  2  :  369)  ;  Brooks,  The  Union  Label  (Bulletin  of 
Commissioner  of  Labor,  15)  ;  Mitchell,  Organized  Labor;  Adams,  u  The 
Granger  Movement"  (N.  Am.  Bev.,  120  :394)  ;  Beport  of  the  Lndustrial 
Commission,  Vol.  VII  (on  labor  organization). 

Taussig,  "  Tariff  of  1909  "  (Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  24  :  1-38) ; 
Tarbell,  "Tariff  in  Our  Own  Times"  (American  Magazine,  Vols.  63-68); 


688  THE  POLITICAL  STORY,   1876-1913 

Ripley,  Trusts,  Pools,  and  Corporations ;  Ripley,  Bailway  Problems; 
Meyer,  Bailway  Legislation  in  the  United  States;  Tarbell,  History  of 
the  Standard  Oil  Company. 

Dubois,  "The  Negro  Farmer"  {Bulletin  of  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor,  8  :  69)  ;  Washington,  Story  of  the  Negro. 

Price,  The  Land  We  Live  In  ("  Boys1  Book  of  Conservation")  ;  Con- 
ference of  Governors  (Washington,  1909). 

Steiner,  On  the  Trail  of  the  Emigrant ;  Howe,  The  City  the  Hope  of 
Democracy ;  Ross,  Changing  America ;  Zeublin,  American  Municipal 
Progress  ;  Wilcox,  The  American  City  :  a  Problem  in  Democracy. 

Fiction :  Foote,  Coeur  d'Alene  (miners  of  Idaho)  ;  Norris,  The  Octo- 
pus, and  The  Pit ;  Richardson,  The  Long  Day  ;  cf.  §  407,  note,  for  other 
even  more  important  titles. 

/jiAJ^n  0-vwj&>  Jc*-*suy 


CHAPTER   XVII 

AMERICA    A    WORLD    POWER 

I.    PREPARATORY   TENDENCIES 

431.  Latin  American  Relations,  1889-1892.  —  Several  incidents  in 
the  ten  years  preceding  the  Spanish  War  pointed  to  a  more  aggressive 
foreign  policy,  to  correspond  with  our  growing  commercial  interests 
abroad.  In  Harrison's  administration  the  energetic  Blaine  was  Secretary 
of  State.  A  cardinal  point  in  his  policy  was  to  extend  the  influence  of 
the  United  States  over  Spanish  America.  In  1889  he  brought  together 
at  Washington  a  notable  Pan-American  Congress  which  furthered  com- 
mercial reciprocity  (§  422)  and  expressed  a  desire  for  standing  treaties 
of  arbitration  between  all  American  nations.  Unhappily,  the  closer 
friendship  with  our  neighbors,  at  which  Mr.  Blaine  wisely  aimed,  was 
checked  seriously,  immediately  afterward,  by  the  President's  bulldozing 
policy  toward  Chile1  —  an  incident  which  roused  deplorable  suspicions 
of  the  good  faith  of  the  United  States  among  the  proud  and  sensitive 
Latin-American  peoples. 

432.  Hawaii.  —  For  fifty  years,  the  United  States  had  held  close  rela- 
tions with  Hawaii.  The  islands  had  accepted  Christianity  from  American 
missionaries  ;  and  American  planters  and  merchants  were  the  chief  ele- 
ment in  a  considerable  White  population.  American  capital,  too,  was 
largely  interested  in  sugar  raising  in  the  islands. 

The  native  government,  under  the  influence  of  foreign  ideas,  had  been 
brought  to  the  form  of  a  constitutional  monarchy.  In  January,  1893,  a 
revolution  deposed  the  native  queen  and  set  up  a  provisional  republic. 
The  leading  spirits  of  the  new  government  were  Americans,  and  they 
asked  for  annexation  to  the  United  States.  The  United  States  minister 
to  the  old  government  ran  up  the  United  States  flag,  virtually  declared 
a  protectorate,  and  secured  a  force  of  marines  from  an  American  vessel  in 
the  harbor  to  overawe  the  natives. 

President  Harrison  had  only  a  few  weeks  of  office  remaining.     He 

1  Special  Report:  Relations  with  Chile,  1891-1892. 


690  AMERICA  A  WORLD   POWER 

tried  to  hurry  through  a  treaty  of  annexation  ;  but  President  Cleveland, 
on  his  accession,  withdrew  it  from  the  Senate,  and  sent  a  special  com- 
missioner to  the  islands  to  investigate.  The  report  revealed  the  revolu- 
tion as  a  conspiracy,  in  which  the  American  minister  had  taken  a  leading 
part  to  overthrow  the  government  to  which  he  was  accredited  ;  while 
the  provisional  republic,  it  was  shown,  was  supported  by  only  a  small 
fraction  of  the  population.  President  Cleveland  attempted  to  undo  this 
"flagrant  wrong"  to  a  weak  state.  Despite  the  violent  outcry  of  Re- 
publican papers,  he  "hauled  down  the  American  flag."  Skillfully . en- 
trenched in  possession  by  this  time,  however,  the  republican  government 
maintained  itself,  unstably,  against  the  native  dynasty  ;  and,  a  few  years 
later,  the  question  of  annexation  was  revived  (§  434). 

433.  The  Venezuela  Arbitration.  —  For  half  a  century  an  obscure  dis- 
pute had  dragged  along  as  to  the  boundary  between  Venezuela  and 
British  Guiana.  In  the  eighties  gold  was  discovered,  and  English  miners 
began  to  crowd  into  the  disputed  wilderness.  By  1895  the  quarrel  was 
acute.  The  English  goverment  made  it  clear  to  Venezuela  that  it  intended 
to  occupy  the  territory.  Venezuela  had  already  appealed  to  the  United 
States  for  protection  ;  and  now  our  government  insisted  vigorously  that 
England  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration.  Lord  Salisbury  declined. 
Then  President  Cleveland  electrified  the  world  by  a  message  to  Congress 
(December  17,  1895)  recommending  the  creation  of  an  American  com- 
mission to  determine  the  true  boundary,  and  pointing  out  that  war  must 
follow  if  England  should  persist  in  refusing  to  accept  the  award. 

For  the  first  time  the  people  in  England  awoke  to  the  fact  that  a  seri- 
ous quarrel  was  in  progress.  People,  press,  and  public  men  made  clear  a 
warmth  of  friendship  for  the  United  States  wholly  unsuspected  by  the 
mass  of  Americans,1  and  it  was  immediately  evident  that  even  the  irritat- 
ing tone  of  American  diplomacy  could  not  arouse  a  war  feeling.  War 
with  the  United  States  on  such  an  issue,  said  Lord  Rosebery,  the  Liberal 
leader,  "  would  be  the  greatest  crime  on  record  "  ;  and  the  Conservative 
leader  in  Parliament,  Mr.  Balfour,  added  that  such  a  contest  would  be 
invested  "  with  the  unnatural  horrors  of  civil  war."  The  ministry  now 
offered  to  accept  arbitration,  suggesting,  however,  an  international  com- 
mission, in  place  of  one  appointed  by  our  government  alone,  and  the 
matter  was  so  arranged.2     It  was  worth  much  to  have  made  plain  that 


1  This  aspect  of  the  affair  was  made  more  prominent  by  a  remarkable  dis- 
play a  few  weeks  later  of  war  feeling  in  England  against  Germany  —  an 
antagonist  at  that  time  much  more  to  be  dreaded  than  the  United  States. 

2  The  commission  reported  in  1899,  favoring  the  English  contention  lor  the 
most  part.    This  result  was  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  United  States. 


THE   SPANISH  WAR  691 

the  United  States  would  fight  to  protect  the  Western  continent  from  out- 
side aggression  ;  but  perhaps  the  incident  is  even  more  significant  as  a 
prophecy  of  agreement  between  powerful  nations  to  compel  arbitration  of 
all  such  disputes. 

The  English  ministry  now  proposed  to  the  United  States  a  standing 
treaty  for  arbitration  of  future  disputes  between  the  two  countries.  The 
treaty  was  drawn  up,  and  was  strongly  urged  upon  the  Senate  by  Presi- 
dent Cleveland  and  later  by  President  McKinley.  But  the  Senate,  now 
in  its  period  of  degradation,  preferred  to  play  politics,  and  refused  to 
ratify  this  proposal  for  an  advance  in  world  peace.1 

II.     TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION 

434.  The  Spanish  War.  — After  1824,  only  Cuba  and  Porto 
Rico  were  left  to  Spain  of  her  once  wide-lying  American  Empire. 
In  Cuba,  too,  revolt  was  chronic.  After  a  "Ten  Years'  Re- 
bellion "  (1868-1878),  Spain  granted  Cuba  constitutional  gov- 
ernment, with  representation  in  the  Spanish  Cortez  ;  but  many 
abuses  continued.  Taxation  was  exorbitant ;  trade  was  shackled, 
in  Spanish  interests ;  and  the  natives  were  despised  by  Spanish 
officials.  In  1895  the  island  was  again  ablaze  with  revolt,  — 
organized  in  great  measure  by  a  Cuban  Junta  in  the  United 
States  and  aided  materially  by  filibustering  expeditions  from  our 
shores.  On  both  sides  the  war  was  barbarous.  In  particular, 
the  cruel  policy  of  the  Spanish  commander,  Weyler,  caused 
deadly  suffering  to  women  and  children,  gathered  into  recon- 
centrado  camps  without  proper  care  or  food.  The  "  Gem  of 
the  Antilles  "  was  rapidly  turning  to  a  desert  and  a  graveyard. 

American  capitalists  had  large  interests  in  the  sugar  industry 
in  the  island,  and  used  powerful  influences,  open  and  secret, 
to  secure  American  intervention,  with  a  view  to  subsequent 
annexation  by  Congress.  Such  forces  played  skillfully  upon  the 
humanitarian  sympathies  of  the  American  people,  and  on 
their  traditional  inclination  to  assist  any  movement  on  this 
continent  for  political  independence.     In  1897  the  country  was 

1  Modern  History,  §  594,  for  other  details. 


692  AMERICA  A  WORLD  POWER 

seething  with  discontent  at  the  continuance  of  Spanish  rule, 
and  Congress  was  eager  for  war ;  but  for  some  months  more 
President  McKinley  steadfastly  held  such  impulses  in  check, 
while  he  tried  to  secure  satisfactory  concessions  to  Cuba  from 
Spain. 

Spain  did  recall  Weyler,  and  the  war  was  placed  upon  a 
"civilized"  footing;  but  a  new  situation  proved  too  strong  for 
the  President's  resolution.  February  15,  1898,  the  American 
battleship  Maine,  visiting  in  the  Havana  harbor,  was  blown 
up,  with  the  loss  of  260  of  her  men.  The  explosion  may  have 
come  from  a  submarine  mine  operated  by  Cubans  to  produce 
the  results  which  followed,  or  the  mine  may  possibly  have 
been  operated  by  a  few  Spanish  officers.  No  one  now  seriously 
believes  that  the  Spanish  government  was  responsible.  At  the 
moment,  however,  this  was  the  almost  universal  assumption  ; 
and  a  vengeful  cry  for  blood  reinforced  irresistibly  the  pre- 
vious call  for  American  interference.  Congress  gave  a  solemn 
pledge  that  the  United  States  would  not  retain  Cuba  for  her- 
self ;  and  the  American  army  and  navy  soon  completed  the 
task  of  expelling  Spain.1 

Meantime,  a  new  aspect  had  been  given  to  the  war.  Admiral 
Dewey,  in  command  of  a  small  American  squadron  in  Asiatic 
waters,  destroyed  a  Spanish  fleet  in  the  Philippines,  and,  some 
months  later,  in  cooperation  with  native  insurgents,  captured 
Manila.  The  war  was  over  by  August.  In  the  treaty  of  peace, 
Spain  left  Cuba  free,  and  ceded  to  the  United  States  Porto 
Rico,  Guam  (in  the  Ladrones),  and  the  Philippines,  receiving 
for  the  last  the  sum  of  $20,000,000. 

Other  territorial  expansion  accompanied  this  acquisition  of  new  terri- 
tory. In  1897  President  McKinley  had  revived  the  attempt  to  annex 
Hawaii  by  treaty.     The  necessary  two  thirds  vote  in  the  Senate  could 

1  The  American  navy  showed  a  surprising  ability  both  in  sailing  and  in 
gunnery.  Equally  amazing  was  the  disgraceful  collapse  of  the  commissariat 
of  land  forces.  The  troops  in  camp  at  Tampa  (in  what  should  have  resembled 
a  pleasant  picnic)  lost  more  men  by  far  than  fell  in  battle  ;  and  in  Cuba  the 
chief  losses  came  from  dysentery  and  fever,  much  of  which  was  avoidable. 


THE   ELECTION   OF   1900  693 

not  be  secured ;  but  after  the  opening  of  the  Spanish  War,  with  De  ivey 
in  need*  of  reinforcements  at  Manila,  Congress  annexed  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  by  a  joint  resolution  —  as  Texas  had  been  acquired  many  years 
before.  About  the  same  time,  several  small  islands  in  the  Pacific,  not 
claimed  by  any  civilized  power,  were  seized  for  naval  and  telegraph  sta- 
tions ;  and,  in  rearrangements  at  Samoa,  due  to  native  insurrections  and 
to  conflicting  claims  by  England,  Germany,  and  the  United  States,  this 
country  secured  the  most  important  island  in  that  group. 

435.  "Imperialism"  in  the  Election  of  1900.  —  The  decision 
to  hold  the  Philippines  as  an  Asiatic  dependency  —  as  Eng- 
land holds  India  —  was  adopted  by  President  McKinley's 
administration  only  after  considerable  hesitation ;  and  the 
policy  was  attacked  vehemently  by  the  Democrats  as  "  Imperi- 
alism." The  Anti-imperialists  urged  that  such  a  policy  not 
only  involved  bad  faith  with  the  Filipinos,  but  that  it  con- 
travened the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  The  attempt  to  rule  against  their  consent 
twice  as  many  people  as  George  Washington  had  been  presi- 
dent over  was  felt  to  be  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  our  insti- 
tutions, likely  to  tend  to  despotism  at  home,  and  sure  to  divert 
energy  from  our  own  problems. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Imperialists,  or  "  Expansionists," 
urged  that  the  United  States  could  no  longer  shirk  responsibil- 
ities as  a  world  power.  The  Filipinos  were  not  fit  for  self- 
government  ;  American  sentiment  would  not  tolerate  returning 
them  to  Spain ;  and  Dewey's  conquest  left  America  answerable 
not  only  for  the  Philippines  themselves,  but,  more  immediately, 
for  European  and  American  settlers  and  interests  at  Manila. 
For  a  decade,  too,  many  thinkers  had  been  looking  with  dread 
to  Russia's  steady  advance  in  Asia,  where  she  threatened  to 
enforce  a  "  closed  door  "  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  perhaps 
to  organize  the  countless  millions  of  China  in  a  world  conflict 
against  Western  civilization.  America  in  the  Philippines 
would  be  a  factor  in  the  Asiatic  question,  and  with  England 
and  Germany  might   check   Russian  aggression.1     To   fulfill 


Japan  had  not  yet  given  promise  of  the  power  soon  to  be  shown. 


694  AMERICA  A  WORLD  POWER 

these  high  duties,  it  was  argued,  would  help,  not  hinder,  in 
inspiring  courage  to  grapple  with  domestic  evils.  Cheek  by- 
jowl  with  these  idealistic  forces  for  expansion,  of  course, 
masqueraded  mere  commercial  greed  and  gross  pride  of  power. 
Imperialism  was  a  leading  issue  in  the  campaign  of  1900 ; 
but  Mr.  Bryan,  once  more  the  Democratic  candidate,  compli- 
cated the  matter  unhappily  by  forcing  into  the  Democratic 
platform  a  declaration  for  the  dying  "  16  to  1 "  cause.  Again 
the  reform  forces  were  divided.  Some  radicals  believed  in 
"expansion,"  and  others,  fearing  "  imperialism,"  feared  free 
silver  more  Hanna,  again  the  Republican  manager,  made 
skillful  use  of  returned  prosperity  under  Republican  rule, 
appealing  to  workingmen  with  the  campaign  emblem  of  "the 
full  dinner-pail."  Mr.  McKinley  was  reelected ; x  but  in  the 
fall  after  his  second  inauguration  he  was  assassinated  by  an 
anarchist,  and  the  presidential  chair  passed  to  Theodore 
Roosevelt  (§  459). 

One  phase  in  the  Nation's  outburst  of  grief  for  its  murdered  chief  car- 
ried ominous  implications.  Americans  had  thought  it  not  wholly  unnat- 
ural that  despotic  European  rulers,  unreachable  in  other  ways,  should 
sometimes  become  a  mark  for  the  dagger  or  bomb  ;  but  we  had  boasted 
that  our  free  discussion  and  equality  of  political  opportunity  did  away 
with  all  such  danger  to  the  chosen  representatives  of  our  people.  The 
awakening  maddened  and  dazed.  A  vengeful  cry  went  up  against  all 
who  were  labeled  "anarchists,"  blindly  confusing  philosophic  thinkers, 
like  the  great  Tolstoi,  who  disbelieve  in  governmental  coercion,  with  the 
crazed  or  criminal  individuals  (anarchists  of  violence)  who  preach  or 
practice  the  murder  of  heads  of  governments.  Some  excited  legislatures 
hurriedly  enacted  repressive  laws  imperiling  freedom  of  speech — one  of 
the  most  precious  of  American  rights  ;  and  Congress  was  assailed  with 
proposals  similarly  dangerous,  especially  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the 
mails.  The  mass  of  the  people  soon  recovered  their  usual  sanity  ;  but,  in 
some  degree,  the  deplorable  event  has  strengthened  a  tendency  in  police 


1  The  Socialist  Labor  party  and  the  Social  Democratic  party  had  tickets  in 
the  field,  and  cast  together  127,000  votes.  There  was  much  apathy  and  uncer- 
tainty ;  and  the  total  vote  was  smaller  than  four  years  before  —  though  the 
country  contained  at  least  a  million  more  voters. 


DEPENDENCIES  695 

authorities  ever  since,  especially  in  great  cities,  to  deal  violently,  beyond 
the  law,  with  radical  agitation  and  even  with  labor  unrest.1 

436.  Excursus:  The  Passing  of  "Free  Silver."  —  Meantime,  the 
intrusion  of  the  currency  question  into  the  campaign  had  resulted  in  a 
law  by  the  victorious  Republicans  definitely  declaring  for  an  exclusive 
gold  standard.  At  the  same  time,  however  (1900),  an  addition  was  made 
to  the  Nation's  currency  by  an  amendment  to  the  law  regarding  National 
banks.  The  bonds,  issued  during  the  Civil  War  at  high  rates  of  interest, 
rose  above  par  soon  after  the  war  was  over.  It  was  then  no  longer  profit- 
able for  a  National  bank  to  keep  large  amounts  tied  up  in  such  bonds  as 
a  basis  for  its  notes  :  it  paid  better  to  withdraw  the  currency  and  sell  the 
bonds.  Accordingly,  the  bank  note  circulation  had  fallen  away,  —  from 
339  millions  in  1865  to  162  millions  in  1891. 

This  contraction  was  a  serious  grievance  to  the  Free  Silver  party.  In 
1900  Congress  gave  new  life  to  the  National  bank  circulation  by  (1)  per- 
mitting a  bank  to  issue  notes  to  100  per  cent  of  its  bond  deposit  (instead 
of  90),  (2)  reducing  the  tax  on  bank  circulation  from  1  per  cent  to  ^  per 
cent,  and  (3)  authorizing  banks  with  only  $25,000  capital  (instead  of 
§50,000)  in  small  towns.  In  the  next  five  years,  under  this  stimulus,  bank 
currency  was  increased  by  a  third  of  a  billion  of  dollars. 

More  important  still  was  another  source  of  currency  expansion.  In 
1898  gold  was  discovered  in  Alaska;  and  soon  that  wild  country  was 
pouring  a  yellow  flood  into  the  mints  of  the  world.  Between  1898  and 
1904,  three  quarters  of  a  billion  of  gold  money  was  coined  in  the  United 
States.  The  debtor  class  could  no  longer  claim  that  currency  was  con- 
tracting.    The  question  of  "  free  silver,"  therefore,  passed  into  oblivion. 

DEPENDENCIES  AND  PROTECTORATES 

437.  Settlement  in  Cuba. — During  the  struggle  of  the  Cu- 
bans against  Spain,  Americans  had  been  wont  to  compare  the 
leader  Gomez  and  his  followers  to  George  Washington  and  his 
patriot  army.  On  closer  view,  many  Americans  began  to  doubt 
whether  Cuba  was  fit  for  self-government ;  but,  as  such  things 
go,  the  pledge  to  leave  Cuba  independent  was  honorably  kept. 
There  was  a  necessary  interval  of  military  occupation.  This 
endured  for  more  than  three  years  (till  April,  1902),  and  con- 

1  Illustration  of  this  last  statement  can  be  gathered  for  the  years  1901-1912 
from  any  labor  paper. 


696  AMERICA  A  WORLD  POWER 

ferred  great  blessings  on  the  island.  It  not  only  established 
order  and  relieved  immediate  suffering,  but  it  also  organized 
a  permanent  and  noble  system  of  hospitals  and  schools,  built 
roads,  cleaned  up  cities,  and  created  adequate  water  supplies. 
For  the  first  time  in  140  years  Havana  was  freed  from  yellow 
fever.  The  sanitary  work  of  the  American  government  in  the 
pest-ridden  island  amazed  the  world.  It  was  in  the  course  of 
this  work  that  Major  Walter  Reed,  a  United  States  surgeon, 
proved  that  yellow  fever  is  transmitted  by  the  mosquito  bite, 
—  a  discovery  which  ranks  among  the  foremost  achievements 
of  modern  science. 

Meantime  General  Wood,  the  American  military  governor, 
had  arranged  for  elections ;  and  a  Cuban  constitutional  conven- 
tion devised  a  republican  constitution.  The  convention  was 
compelled  to  accept  certain  terms  dictated  by  Congress,  con- 
senting that  the  United  States  should  hold  points'  on  the  coast 
for  naval  stations,  and  should  have  the  right  to  interfere  in 
order  to  preserve  the  island  from  outside  encroachments  or 
from  domestic  convulsions. 

The  first  Cuban  government  represented  mainly  the  educated  planters 
of  Spanish  descent.  The  bulk  of  the  people,  of  mixed  Indian  and  Negro 
blood,  laborers  on  the  great  plantations,  were  excluded  from  the  fran- 
chise by  educational  or  property  qualifications.1  These  masses  were  dissat- 
isfied ;  and,  in  1906,  they  broke  out  in  insurrection.  President  Roosevelt 
dispatched  American  troops  to  the  island,  to  restore  order.  This  second 
occupation  lasted  until  1909.  Meantime,  Gomez,  representing  the  mass 
of  the  Cuban  people,  became  president.  It  now  seems  probable  that  Cuba 
will  be  left  to  work  out  her  own  destiny,  with  somewhat  less  of  anarchy 
than  fell  to  the  older  Spanish  American  republics.2 


1  A  census  taken  by  General  Wood  shows  that  three  fourths  of  the  adult  popu- 
lation could  not  read. 

2  The  various  contests  in  the  United  States  over  the  relations  of  Cuba  to 
the  United  States  have  been  marked  by  an  unseemly  contest  between  the 
"  Sugar  Trust,"  which  wants  Cuba  annexed  so  that  it  may  get  raw  Cuban  sugar 
free  of  tariff  duties  for  its  refineries,  and  the  Beet  Sugar  combine,  which 
wants  to  keep  Cuba  a  foreign  country  so  that  Cuban  sugar  may  be  excluded 
by  a  high  tariff. 


DEPENDENCIES  697 

438-  The  Settlement  in  Hawaii  and  Porto  Rico.  —  In  1900  Hawaii 
was  organized  as  a  Territory,  on  essentially  the  usual  self-governing 
basis.  Porto  Rico  with  its  large  Spanish  element,  civilized  but  un- 
friendly, presented  a  difficult  problem.  At  present,  the  government  con- 
tains a  representative  element;  but  real  control  is  vested  in  officials 
appointed  by  the  United  States,  —  somewhat  after  the  analogy  of  certain 
British  colonies  intermediate  between  "  crown  colonies  "  and  "  responsible 
governments." 2 

439.  The  Philippines  contain  115,000  square  miles,  broken  into  a 
thousand  islands,2  with  eight  million  inhabitants.  These  are  distributed 
in  eighty  tribes,  ranging  from  primitive  savagery  (of  the  poisoned  arrow 
stage)  to  civilization,  and  speaking  a  score  of  different  tongues  and  dia- 
lects. Five  sevenths  of  the  whole  number  are  Catholics;  the  stalwart 
Moros  are  Mohammedan;  the  "wild"  half  million  are  divided  among 
primitive  superstitions.  The  centuries  of  Spanish  rule  have  left  much 
Spanish  blood,  mixed  with  native,  in  the  more  civilized  districts;  and 
commercial  interests  account  for  a  considerable  European  population  at 
Manila  and  some  other  ports. 

In  1896  the  islanders  attempted  one  of  their  many  risings  against 
Spanish  rule.  The  Spanish  government  brought  it  to  a  close  by  promising 
reforms  and  paying  Aguinaldo  and  other  leaders  to  leave  the  islands. 
The  reforms  were  not  carried  out,  and  only  a  part  of  the  promised  money 
was  paid  ;  and  when  Dewey  was  about  to  attack  the  Spanish  in  the  islands, 
he  invited  Aguinaldo  to  return  with  him  from  China,  in  order  to  organize 
a  native  insurrection  to  cooperate  with  the  American  invasion.  The 
insurgents  hailed  the  Americans  as  deliverers,  and  took  an  active  part 
in  the  siege  and  capture  of  Manila.  Soon,  however,  the  American  com- 
manders received  instructions  from  Washington  not  to  treat  the  insur- 
gents as  allies,  but  to  assert  American  sovereignty  over  them.  This  led 
to  war.  After  two  years  of  regular  campaigns  against  50,000  American 
troops,  the  natives  took  to  guerrilla  warfare  —  in  which  their  ferocious 
barbarities  were  sometimes  imitated  all  too  successfully  by  the  Americans. 
In  1902  the  United  States  declared  the  "  rebellion  "  subdued. 

The  supreme  authority  is  intrusted  to  an  "Insular  Commission,"  ap- 
pointed by  the  President,  composed  mainly  of  Americans.  The  islands 
are  marked  off  into  provinces,  and  these  are  divided  into  municipal  dis- 
tricts.    In  each  municipal  district  of  the  more  civilized  provinces  a  coun- 

1  Modern  History,  §  558,  close. 

2  Two  thirds  of  these  are  too  small  for  habitation  ;  and  half  the  total  area 
is  comprised  in  two  islands. 


698 


AMERICA  A  WORLD   POWER 


cil  is  elected  by  all  the  people  who  can  read  and  write  either  Spanish  or 
English,  or  who  possess  a  little  property;   but  these  local  governments 

are  mainly  administrative,  — 

to  carry  out  instructions  from 
above ;  and  they  are  subject 
to  strict  supervision.  In  each 
such  civilized  province,  the 
municipal  councils  choose  a 
provincial  "governor."  Two 
other  officials,  however,  ap- 
pointed by  the  Insular  Com- 
mission, act  with  the  gov- 
ernor, and  can  overrule  him  ; 
and  this  governing  board  is 
supervised  by  the  central  Com- 
mission. In  1907,  in  accord- 
ance with  a  decree  of  the 
American  Congress,  a  Philip- 
pine Assembly,  with  limited 
powers,  was  convened. 

In  spite  of  these  forms  of 
self-government,  the  Philip- 
pine people  have  no  real  con- 
trol yet  over  even  their  local 
affairs ;  but  if  they  show  ca- 
pacity to  work  representative  institutions,  American  feeling  will  probably 
insist  on  passing  over  to  them  larger  and  larger  powers,  —possibly  retain- 
ing only  a  protectorate  as  to  foreign  relations,  as  with  Cuba.  Imperialism 
is  no  longer  a  party  issue.  All  parties  are  ready  to  pledge  extension  of 
self-government  as  rapidly  as  may  be  consistent  with  good  order.  The 
victory  of  Japan  over  Russia  in  1904  removed  one  of  the  leading  incen- 
tives for  American  intervention  in  the  Orient.  It  is  now  apparent  that 
the  Oriental  peoples  will  prove  masters  of  their  own  destinies. 

American  government  has  conferred  many  undoubted  benefits  upon 
the  Philippines.  The  choice  lands,  held  by  the  friars,  have  been  pur- 
chased and  opened  to  native  acquisition ; ,  and  the  school  system  that 
has  been  introduced  merits  high  praise.  On  the  other  hand,  Congress 
has  not  extended  to  the  people  in  the  dependencies  all  the  civil  rights 


CHINA       J?                           g     ) 
Can*22-*>»^           FORMOSA!       % 

* 

^^jOlongkong                                   y       , 

k 

Q 

• 
•• 

»-< 

SOUTH         f  c     \ 

\     °  1 

WW 

Manija  -  X<«™« 

CHINA       V^>S 

MINDOROI.\\ 

o 

CATANDUANES 

^     ° 

J^M^ARi. 

SEA        J?*     '    i^ 

PALAWAN    \.f/              NEGROSg 

m 

^y 

vV  jJN 

ft     SULU    SEA     , 
Balabac  Strait                              if 

jMLNDANAO    1.1 

XborneoV.            •*-•*   Celebes  Sea\f 

The  Philippines. 


1  Though,  in  the  administration  of  President  Taft,  the  Sugar  Trust  (not  a 
Philippine  organization)  acquired  65,000  acres  of  these  lands  at  about  a  third 
of  what  our  government  had  paid  for  them. 


ft<d*~s%r 


PROBLEMS  699 

of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ;  and  it  has  definitely  rejected  the  plea 
that  "  the  Constitution  follows  the  flag  "  and  that  such  rights  are  theirs 
without  enactment.  It  has  not  even  included  the  islands  within  the  cus- 
toms boundary  of  the  United  States.  Various  protected  interests  in 
America  demanded  the  continuance  of  a  tariff  on  Porto  Rican  sugar  and 
on  various  Philippine  products  ;  and  Congress  complied,  —  making  only 
slight  reductions  on  the  tariffs  payable  by  foreign  importations.  Such 
deprivation  of  the  expected  American  market  seems  to  the  islanders  a 
gross  injustice,  savoring  of  Spanish  methods ;  but  the  Supreme  Court 
in  a  series  of  decisions,  usually  by  the  vote  of  5  to  4,  has  upheld  the 
complete  authority  of  Congress  to  rule  and  tax  at  will  these  dependencies 

—  since  they  "  belong  to,"  but  are  not  a  "  part  of  "  the  United  States.1 

IV.    SINCE  THE  SPANISH  WAR 

440.  Preservation  of  China.  —  In  1899  President  McKinley's  Secre- 
tary of  State,  John  Hay,  addressed  a  note  to  all  the  powers  interested  in 
China,  urging  an  agreement  that  no  power  should  exclude  the  citizens  of 
other  countries  from  trade  in  its  "  sphere  'of  influence "  there.  This 
11  open  door"  policy  was  opposed  to  the  wish  of  Russia,  and  perhaps  of 
Germany,  but  it  had  the  earnest  support  of  England  and  the  warm 
approval  of  the  smaller  commercial  countries,  and  its  announcement  by 
the  United  States  was  a  much  needed  help  at  just  that  time  in  preventing 
threatened  grabs  of  Chinese  territory  by  European  powers.  After  the 
Boxer  risings  in  China,2  Secretary  Hay  again  had  a  first  place  in  prevent- 
ing the  seizure  of  territorial  indemnities  from  China  by  other  powers. 
At  the  opening  of  the  Japan-Russian  War  (1904),  Hay,  then  Roosevelt's 
Secretary  of  State,  obtained  from  the  two  contestants  pledges  that  they 
would  observe  the  neutrality  of  China. 

In  all  this,  of  course,  the  immediate  incentive  of  American  policy  was 
to  prevent  the  exclusion  of  American  trade  from  rich  Oriental  provinces  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  that  policy  fell  in  with  the  interests  of  civilization 
and  humanity.  In  1905,  too,  President  Roosevelt  intervened  actively  to 
bring  about  peace  between  Russia  and  Japan. 

441.  European  Force  to  collect  Debts  from  South  American  States. 

—  The  Latin  American  States  need  capital  for  their  development,  and 
sometimes  they  invite  it  by  granting  foreigners  valuable  franchises  and 
"concessions."     These  grants  are  often  resented  by  the  natives   and 

1  Cf.  §  260.  For  a  good  review  of  these  decisions,  see  Latane's  The  United 
States  as  a  World  Power,  133-152. 

2  Modern  History,  §  590. 


700  AMERICA  A  WORLD  POWER 

sometimes  revoked  by  succeeding  governments.  In  this,  and  in  many- 
other  ways,  foreigners  acquire  claims  against  these  countries  which  the 
states  are  unwilling  or  unable  to  pay.  The  United  States  has  taken  the 
ground  that  the  use  of  national  force  to  recover  such  claims  for  a  private 
citizen  is  improper.  England  has  usually  adhered  to  the  like  policy. 
But  other  powerful  nations  have  commonly  shown  a  readiness  to  collect 
such  private  debts  for  their  citizens  by  force  or  threats  of  force  against 
a  weak  country. 

In  the  case  of  Central  and  South  American  states,  however,  our  adher- 
ence to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  obliges  European  governments  to  act  with 
some  circumspection,  and  many  of  them  have  expressed  the  opinion  for- 
cibly that  if  the  United  States  intends  to  protect  semi-anarchic,  bank- 
rupt communities,  it  must  itself  keep  them  in  order  or  assume  their  obliga- 
tions to  the  outside  world.  In  1902  ten  European  countries  had  claims, 
aggregating  some  $38,000,000,  against  Venezuela.  Castro,  President  of 
the  Republic,  defied  the  claimants.  Finally  Germany  and  England  began 
a  blockade  of  Venezuelan  ports.  Through  the  efforts  of  President  Roose- 
velt and  Secretary  Hay,  the  blockade  was  soon  raised,  and  the  claims 
submitted  to  arbitration.  <  This  process  revealed  gross  padding  and 
unreasonableness  in  the  claimants  :  the  commissions  cut  the  amounts 
down  to  less  than  eight  millions,  and,  under  pressure  from  this  country, 
provision  was  made  by  Venezuela  to  pay  this  amount. 

During  the  dispute,  President  Roosevelt  had  said  that  coercion  of  an 
American  state  without  seizure  of  territory  would  not  necessarily  infringe 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  But  the  only  other  practicable  form  of  coercion  for 
the  collection  of  debts  seems  to  be  the  temporary  seizure  of  customhouses 
and  the  appropriation  of  tariff  duties.  Such  a  step  might  easily  lead  to 
indefinite  territorial  occupation  ;  and  many  Americans  feel  that  nothing 
of  the  sort  ought  to  be  permitted.  President  Roosevelt  took  the  ground 
that  if  "chronic  wrong-doing "  or  "impotence "  in  any  American  country 
called  for  intervention,  then  it  would  become  necessary  for  the  United 
States  to  "  exercise  an  international  police  power."  In  pursuance  of  this 
doctrine,  in  1904,  he  stepped  in  to  obviate  European  intervention  in  bank- 
rupt San  Domingo,  by  virtually  making  the  United  States  the  '^receiver  " 
for  that  country  in  behalf  of  its  creditors. 

This  policy  the  President  carried  through  by  rather  arbitrary  methods, 
against  the  constitutional  objections  of  the  Senate ;  and  it  has  been 
severely  criticized  on  the  ground  that  it  encourages  foreign  capitalists  to 
engage  in  the  wildest  financial  schemes  in  South  America,  guaranteeing 
them  their  claim  through  United  States  intervention.  Another  solution 
of  the  whole  matter,  much  in  favor  among  the  weaker  nations  themselves, 
would  be  to  leave  all  such  claims  against  a  government  to  arbitration  by 


PANAMA  CANAL  701 


the  Hague  Tribunal,  and  to  let  any  capitalist  take  the  risk,  if  he  seeks 
investments  in  countries  which  would  not  regard  such  arbitration. 

442.  The  Panama  Canal.  —  In  1881  a  French  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany began  work  at  the  isthmus,  but  eight  years  later  the  project  came 
to  an  ignoble  end  in  financial  scandal,  with  little  to  show  for  the 
$260, 000, 000  expenditure.  Secretary  Blaine  (§431)  was  then  earnestly 
desirous  of  making  the  canal  the  concern  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment;  but  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  (§304)  made  such  action  practi- 
cally impossible  at  that  time. 

The  Spanish  War  brought  the  matter  forcibly  to  public  attention 
again,  — especially  when  a  battleship  much  needed  to  reinforce  the  Amer- 
ican Atlantic  squadron  had  to  circle  the  Horn  to  get  to  Cuban  waters. 
The  American  people  began  to  demand  an  interoceanic  canal,  under 
American  control.  The  extremely  cordial  attitude  of  England  during  the 
struggle  made  it  easy  now  to  secure  from  her  a  waiver  of  her  rights  under 
the  ancient  treaty.  Accordingly,  in  1902,  the  United  States  bought  up 
the  rights  of  the  Panama  Company.  The  government  was  unwilling, 
however,  to  undertake  so  vast  a  work  unless  it  could  secure  sovereignty 
over  a  considerable  strip  of  territory,  so  as  to  police  the  route  effectively. 
Colombia  refused  the  treaty  urged  upon  it  by  President  Roosevelt.  The 
American  government  felt  that  it  was  being  held  up  for  unreasonable 
booty.  Two  weeks  later  an  opportune  revolution  in  the  little  republic 
separated  Panama  from  Colombia.  American  naval  forces  were  so  dis- 
posed as  to  assist  the  revolution  materially  ;  and  ex-President  Roosevelt 
has  acknowledged  that  the  movement  was  directly  manipulated  from 
Washington.  The  new  Panama  Republic  immediately  made  the  neces- 
sary cession  to  the  United  States,  and  the  canal  was  undertaken  as  a 
National  project. 

443.  Arbitration.  —  The  United  States  took  a  creditable  part  at  the 
Hague  Conference  in  1899  1  and  at  the  second  meeting  in  1907.  During  the 
years  1903-1905  thirty-three  separate  treaties  between  various  European 
powers  provided  for  arbitration  of  international  differences  by  the  Hague 
Tribunal  or  some  other  standing  commission.  In  1904  ten  such  treaties 
negotiated  by  Secretary  Hay  with  important  countries  were  submitted  to 
our  Senate  for  ratification,  with  the  strong  indorsement  of  President 
Roosevelt.  The  Senate,  influenced  by  general  factiousness,  by  dislike  of 
the  strenuous  and  "progressive  "  President,  and  by  jealousy  for  its  own 
treaty-making  prerogative,  rendered  the  treaties  useless  by  unacceptable 
amendments,  as  it  had  rejected  the  earlier  proposal  of  like  character  be- 
tween England  and  the  United  States  (§  433).     Some  treaties  of  about 

1  Modem  History,  §  594. 


702  AMERICA  A  WORLD  POWER 

the  same  nature,  however,  have  since  been  ratified ;  but  during  the  ses- 
sions of  1911  and  1912,  the  Senate  showed  marked  hostility  to  another 
extension  of  the  principle  of  arbitration  strongly  urged  by  President  Taft. 
International  arbitration,  which  began  in  the  modern  form  with  the 
Jay  Treaty  (§232),  found  its  most  effective  champion  for  a  century  in 
America  ;  and  as  a  matter  of  national  pride  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  pri- 
ority in   this  great  movement  has  been  permitted  to  pass  into  other 

hands.1 
f 

P      ^  i  Cf.  Modern  History,  §  594. 


" 


' 


^ 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

PEOPLE    AND    GOVERNMENT    TO-DAY 

"The  chief  interest  in  history  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  not  yet  fin- 
ished." —  Ashley. 

444.  Social  Unrest.  —  The  modern  industrial  organization 
produces  wealth,  with  gratifying  rapidity,  but  it  fails  to  distrib- 
ute wealth  properly.  America  is  rich ;  but  -too  many  Amer- 
icans are  horribly  poor.  Ostentatious  affluence,  marked  by 
wasteful  and  vicious  expenditure,  jostles  a  cruel  and  debasing 
penury.  And  this  modern  poverty  is  harder  to  bear  than  the 
older  poverty  of  colonial  times,  because  it  seems  less  necessary. 
Then  there  was  little  wealth  to  divide :  now  there  is  ample  for  all, 
but  it  is  engrossed  by  a  few. 

Between  1860  and  1900,  the  ratio  of  wealth  to  population  (per 
capita  wealth)  was  magnified  by  four ;  but  the  average  working- 
man  was  not  four  times  better  off  —  nor  two  times.  Indeed, 
great  multitudes  were  worse  off  than  any  considerable  portion 
of  society  in  earlier  times.  Of  the  vast  increase  of  wealth, 
some  nine  tenths  went  to  one  tenth  the  population,  while  one- 
fifth  of  the  people  were  reduced  to  a  stage  of  poverty  where 
bodily  health  and  moral  decency  are  imperiled. 

The  careful  study  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  proves  that  in  those  forty 
years  (1860-1900),  the  average  real  wage  rose  about  one  fourth,  — though 
this  gain  has  been  largely  lost  again  since  1900  in  the  rapid  rise  in  the 
cost  of  living.  There  has  been,  however,  a  real  gain  in  the  standard  of 
living.  In  the  same  forty  years,  the  average  consumption  of  wheat  per 
capita  rose  from  4.7  bushels  to  5.8  bushels,  and  of  sugar,  from  36  to  71 
pounds.  This  is  representative  of  the  gain  in  necessities  and  luxuries. 
Some  gain  is  a  certain  and  satisfactory  fact ;  the  absence  of  proper  gain  is 
certain  and  unsatisfactory. 

In  1906  the  New  York  State  Association  of  Charities  and  Corrections 
appointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the  standard  of  living  in  New  York 

703 


704  PEOPLE   AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

city.  Aided  by  generous  appropriation  from  the  Russell  Sage  Founda- 
tion, this  committee  during  the  next  two  years  made  careful  study  of 
hundreds  of  typical  families  in  different  strata  of  society  among  the  work- 
ingmen.  These  studies  establish  definitely  the  fact  that  families  of  five 
(father,  mother,  and  three  children  under  fourteen)  with  an  income  of 
$600  or  less  (two  dollars  a  day  for  every  working  day)  do  not  get  enough 
good  food  to  maintain  physical  efficiency  or  decent  conditions  of  lodging. 
Some  families,  with  incomes  between  §700  and  $800,  by  dint  of  unusual 
management,  do  attain  a  standard  of  living  which  prevents  deterioration  ; 
but  the  committee  concludes  that  on  the  average  this  result  cannnot  be 
secured  in  New  York  city  on  less  than  §825  a  year  (82.75  a  day  for  every 
working  day).  Even  then,  dentistry  and  medical  care  must  be  sought 
in  free  dispensaries  for  the  most  part ;  and  no  allowance  is  made  for  sav- 
ing. When  we  remember  that  in  every  great  city,  a  large  proportion  of 
families  possess  incomes  of  only  half  or  two  thirds  this  amount,  the  seri- 
ous nature  of  the  situation  becomes  clear. 

Nor  is  either  the  upper  tenth  or  the  lower  fifth  of  society  in  its  place 
mainly  from  its  own  desert.  Social  forces  beyond  the  control  of  single 
individuals  have  had  most  to  do  with  selecting  the  material  for  the  apex 
and  the  base  of  the  pyramid.  The  tenth  contains  real  captains  of  in- 
dustry, but  also  parasites  and  pirates ;  and  service  to  society  plays  a 
smaller  part  in  its  revenues  than  do  plunder  and  privilege.  The  lower 
fifth  contains  many  men  whose  poverty  results  from  physical  or  mental 
incapacity  or  moral  obliquity,  though  these  qualities  are  quite  as  often 
a  result  of  poverty  as  a  cause ; *  but  it  contains  also  multitudes  of  will- 
ing, hard-working,  sober  men  and  women  who  deserve  a  chance,  now 
denied,  at  decent,  useful,  happy  lives. 

Five  recent  changes  have  intensified  the  social  unrest. 

a.  In  the  early  day,  when  no  man  was  very  rich  anyway,  there  was 
always  one  lever  within  reach  to  help  lessen  the  inequalities  in  social  con- 
dition, —  namely,  free  land  at  every  man's  door.  Since  1800  this  condi- 
tion has  been  more  remote,  —  appertaining  to  a  distant  frontier.  Since 
1890  it  has  disappeared  from  American  life.'1 

1  "  The  destruction  of  the  poor  is  their  poverty."  —  Proverbs  x.  15. 

2  Occasionally,  an  Indian  reservation  or  a  patch  of  irrigated  land  is  still 
pened  to  settlement ;  but  the  number  of  people  affected  at  any  one  time  by 
uch  "free  land"  is  too  small,  in  proportion  to  the  whole,  to  affect  the  con- 
ditions of  the  labor  market,  —  however  much  a  few  individuals  may  be 
bettered, 


WEALTH  AND  POVERTY  705 

b.  The  typical  laborer  is  no  longer  the  farmer,  working  his  own  fields, 
but  the  factory  hand,  who  can  have  no  chance  ever  to  become  a  capitalist 
or  employer.  One  third  the  population  in  1900  was  still  engaged  in  tilling 
the  soil ;  but  two  fifths  were  engaged  in  manufactures  or  transportation. 

c.  The  relation  of  factory  workers  to  employers  has  been  transformed. 
Until  the  Civil  War,  the  factory  owner,  as  a  rule,  lived  in  the  factory  vil- 
lage, a  sort  of  overlord,  with  paternal  responsibility  for  the  welfare  of 
his  employees.  In  return,  he  received  from  them  a  kind  of  personal 
loyalty.  But  when  the  individual  employer  gave  way  to  the  corporation 
and  the  trust,  those  semi-feudal  relations,  good  and  bad,  vanished.  The 
manager  resembles  the  overseer  of  an  absentee  landlord  ;  and  the  rela- 
tions between  capital  and  labor  cease  to  be  personal  and  become  wholly 
commercial. 

d.  Women  have  invaded  the  labor  market.  Much  of  the  industry  for- 
merly carried  on  in  the  household  (weaving,  spinning,  baking,  etc.)  came 
to  be  carried  on  instead  in  factories  and  mills,  —  and  the  women  "fol- 
lowed their  jobs."  Apart  from  this,  however,  they  have  invaded  new 
lines  of  industry  in  a  constantly  growing  proportion  to  the  whole  army  of 
workers. 

e.  The  "trust"  lessens  the  chance  of  the  laborer  to  "compete"  in 
the  labor  market.  The  result  is  a  despotism,  sometimes  kindly  dis- 
posed and  paternalistic,  but  often  cruel,  and  always  nearly  absolute. 
The  Steel  Trust  (§  410)  has  been  officered  by  philanthropic  gentlemen 
who  found  colleges  and  libraries,  build  model  towns,  and  strive  sincerely 
to  better  the  condition  of  their  employees.1  Yet,  in  actual  fact,  an  inves- 
tigation by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  in  1910  showed  that  of  153,000  employees 
investigated  in  the  blast  furnaces  and  rolling  mills,  50,000  worked  seven 
days  a  week,  and  over  30,000  worked  twelve  hours  for  seven  days,  with  a 
twenty-four  hour  shift  once  in  two  weeks,  —  all  this,  too,  in  most  terrible 
and  oppressive  labor,  —  while  the  Trust  was  paying  out  many  millions 
each  year  in  dividends  on  "  water." 

The  moral  enthusiasm  of  the  forties  and  fifties  spent  itself  in  the 
war  to  free  the  slave.  After  the  sixties,  idealism  faded  from  our  public 
life.     Commercialism,  vaunting  its  "  prosperity,"  held  the  reins.     New 


1  Even  these  efforts  of  paternalistic  despotism  have  a  black  side.  The  Steel 
Trust  is  lauded  for  its  pension  system  for  its  employees.  But  a  closer  look 
shows  that  these  pensions  are  not  given  as  matter  of  course,  but  at  the  will  of 
the  employers  —  and  may  at  any  time  be  withdrawn.  The  result  is  to  make 
the  employee  more  dependent  and  more  anxious  to  conciliate  favor.  Pensions 
of  this  sort  bribe  and  degrade. 


706  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

evils  grew  upon  the  life  of  the  people  with  little  check,  so  long  as  they 
threw  no  immediate  obstacles  in  the  path  of  "  prosperity's "  chariot 
wheels.  For  twenty  years  (i 870-1 890)  society  refused  to  see  its  shame 
and  its  danger  :  it  slept  incredulous,  or  it  awoke  shameless.  But  about 
1890  a  new  tide  of  moral  earnestness  began  to  swell  in  American  life, 
comparable  only  with  that  which  marked  the  days  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 
Again  the  people  heard  the  call  to  line  up  in  a  struggle  for  Social  Justice 
against  Vested  Wrong  and  Special  Privilege,  which,  like  the  Slave  Power, 
reaped  where  they  had  not  sown.  The  Nation  awoke  shamed ;  but  it 
awoke  in  the  dark,  enmeshed  in  a  net  of  intangible  chains,  and  found 
itself  for  a  time  curiously  unable  to  grapple  with  its  enemy.  Now,  at 
the  end  of  another  twenty  years,  a  new  dawn  is  breaking.  The  moral 
sense  of  the  people  has  grown  steadily  more  and  more  alert  and  sensi- 
tive and  determined.  The  people  have  found  a  gallant  group  of  leaders, 
who  will  not  repeat  the  ancient  farce  of  surrender  or  betrayal  after 
victory  (La  Follette  in  Wisconsin,  Woodrow  Wilson  in  New  Jersey,  Folk 
in  Missouri,  Heney  and  Hiram  W.  Johnson  in  California,  Cummins 
in  Iowa,  —  with  many  capable  lieutenants  in  these  and  neighboring 
States),  and,  under  this  guidance,  they  have  begun  to  fashion  weapons 
for  the  strife  more  effectual  than  were  ever  before  enlisted  for  free- 
dom. Some  victories  have  been  won;  but  perhaps  the  most  hopeful 
characteristic  of  the  day  is  the  growing  conviction  that  the  first  step 
toward  industrial  freedom  is  the  restoration  to  the  people  of  self-govern- 
ment through  new  machinery,  like  the  referendum,  initiative,  recall, 
direct  nomination  of  all  officers,  and  more  direct  control  over  the  Senate 
and  the  Federal  courts. 

In  politics  and  society,  this  new  moral  earnestness  embodies  itself  in 
various  movements,  which,  for  most  practical  purposes,  can  well  afford 
to  join  hands.  Three  main  movements  are  treated  briefly  in  the  follow- 
ing pages:  Labor  organization;  Socialism;  and  the  Progressive  move- 
ment in  politics. 

I.    THE   LABOR   MOVEMENT 

"Laborin'  man  and  laborin'  woman  hev  one  glory  and  one  shame: 
Every  thin'  that's  done  inhuman  injers  all  on  'em  the  same." 

—  Biglow  Papers. 

445.  Modern  Organization  of  Labor.  —  The  ten  years  preced- 
ing the  Civil  War,  with  the  new  conveniences  for  communica- 
tion and  combination  (§  362),  saw  a  few  trades  organize  on  a 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  707 

national  scale  (instead  of  for  localities  only) ;  but  these  first 
national  "  unions  "  were  weak,  or  were  confined  to  trades  whose 
total  membership  was  small.  The  sixties  witnessed  a  re- 
markable spread  of  the  movement.  The  Brotherhood  of  Loco- 
motive Engineers  organized  in  1863,  the  cigar  makers  in  '64, 
the  brickmakers  in  '65,  railway  conductors  in  '68,  railway  fire- 
men in  '69  —  all  strong  unions.  By  1870  forty  trades  had 
achieved  national  organization.  Then  the  movement  received 
a  new  impulse  from  the  consolidation  of  capital,  until  all 
skilled  trades  became  so  organized.  The  national  "  union " 
is  the  correlative  of  the  "  trust." 

Nearly  every  union  has  its  weekly  or  monthly  organ,  The  Carpenter, 
The  Fireman's  Magazine,  etc.  ;  and,  apart  from  industrial  matters,  these 
organizations  have  exerted  a  notable  influence  and  training.  Many  a 
local  "Assembly  "  conducts  its  business  and  debates  with  a  promptitude 
and  skill  that  would  be  highly  instructive  to  college  faculty  or  State 
legislature. 

But  organization  of  single  trades,  even  on  a  national  scale, 
was  not  enough.  In  1869  a  few  workingmen  in  Philadelphia 
founded  The  Noble  Order  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  —  to  include 
all  workers,  skilled  or  unskilled,  —  with  the  motto,  "  The 
injury  of  one  is  the  concern  of  all."  The  strike  year  of  '77 
(§  446)  popularized  the  movement ;  and  in  '78  it  held  its  first 
National  Assembly,  made  up  of  delegates  from  local  and  dis- 
trict assemblies.  For  years  this  Order  exercised  vast  influence 
for  good,  and  was  the  fount  of  much  wholesome  legislation  in 
State  and  Nation  (§  450).  It  was  somewhat  discredited  by 
association  with  disastrous  strikes  in  '86 ;  and  the  more  highly 
skilled  trades,  skeptical  of  fruitful  alliance  with  unskilled 
men,  and  desirous  of  more  effective  control  of  their  own  in- 
terests, had  already  begun  to  secede.  Then  the  Knights 
joined  the  Populists  in  the  Free  Silver  campaigns,  and  virtu- 
ally fell  with  the  failure  of  that  movement l  —  but  only  to  be 
replaced  by  a  more  powerful  organization. 

1  Especial  gratitude  is  due  the  Knights  of  Labor  for  their  early  recognition 
of  the  right  of  women  to  equal  pay  with  men  for  equal  service,  and  for  their 


* 


708  PEOPLE  AND   GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

TJie  American  Federation  of  Labor  rose,  phoenixlike,  from 
the  ashes  of  the  Knights.  Its  units  are  the  national  unions 
of  single  trades ;  it  does  not  recognize  unskilled  labor  in  its 
organization.  In  1912  it  counted  some  two  million  men,  be- 
sides three  quarters  of  a  million  more  organized  in  railway 
unions.  It  has  encouraged  the  formation  of  Trades'  Assemblies 
(the  "  Trades-union  "  of  the  thirties)  in  all  large  places,  com- 
posed of  delegates  from  the  local  unions  and  standing  to  them 
somewhat  as  the  National  Federation  stands  to  the  national 
unions.  The  annual  convention  and  the  executive  council  of 
the  American  Federation  exercise  tremendous  influence  over 
the  separate  unions,  but  have  no  binding  power  over  them, — 
except  authority  to  levy  assessments  to  sustain  a  strike  ap- 
proved by  the  central  council.1  Samuel  Gompers  has  been 
annually  reelected  president  for  some  twenty  years  (1913),  and 
has  proven  himself  a  notable  leader. 

Over  against  this  organization  of  labor  stands  organized 
capital,  —  the  Employers'  Associations,  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Manufacturers,  and  especially  the  Citizens'  Industrial 
Association  of  America. 

446.  Labor  War.  —  As  with  the  earlier  organizations  of  the 
thirties,  so  too  the  modern  unions  at  once  asserted  hostility 
between  labor  and  capital.  Said  the  brickmakers,  in  the 
preamble  to  their  constitution,  in  '65  :  —  "  Capital  has  assumed 
the  right  to  own  and  control  labor  for  its  own  selfish  ends." 
The  first  violent  clash  came,  naturally,  in  the  railway  world, 
—  because  organization  on  both  sides  was  first  complete  there. 
The  railway  panic  of  '73  led  many  roads  to  cut  wages.  The 
powerful  organizations  of  "  skilled  "  engineers  and  conductors 
proved  able  to  ward  off  such  reductions,  or  at  least  to  secure 
fair  hearing,  in  most  cases,  by  mere  threats  of  a  strike ;  but 
the  places  of  firemen  and  switchmen  could  be  filled  more 
easily,  and  on  these  classes  fell  the  most  serious  reductions  of 

hearty  welcome  to  world-peace  movements.     An  admirable  account  of  the 
Order,  in  brief,  may  be  found  in  Ely's  Labor  Movement  in  America. 
1  Contrast  this  organization  with  the  labor  organizations  of  1830. 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  709 

pay.  In  '77  the  fourth  cut  within  five  years  drove  these  em- 
ployees on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  to  a  strike  —  which  spread 
like  a  prairie  blaze  to  many  other  roads.  The  strikers  sought 
to  prevent  the  running  of  freight  trains.  Riot  and  bloodshed 
were  widespread,  from  Baltimore  to  San  Francisco.  Pittsburg 
was  in  the  hands  of  a  mob  for  days.  The  crowds  of  idle  and 
desperate  men  in  the'  cities,  and  the  thousands  of  "tramps" 
in  the  country  (both  new  features  in  American  life  with  the 
'73  panic)  added  to  the  violence  and  disorder.  Millions  on 
millions  of  dollars  of  railway  property  were  destroyed,  and  the 
injury  to  private  business  was  much  more  disastrous.  The 
militia  generally  proved  unwilling,  when  called  out  against 
the  strikers  or  the  mobs;  but  violence  was  finally  repressed, 
and  peaceful  strikers  sometimes  intimidated,  by  Federal  troops, 
on  the  call  of  State  governors  or  of  United  States  marshals. 
On  the  whole,  however,  the  strikers  won  important  conces- 
sions.1 

The  Bureau  of  Labor  computes  34,657  strikes  for  the  following  twenty- 
five-year  period,  1881-1905.  Over  eight  million  men  were  directly  in- 
volved ;  and  the  direct  cost  —  apart  from  the  greater  indirect  cost  to  the 
public  —  Was  half  a  billion  of  dollars.  More  than  one  third  of  these 
strikes  are  classed  as  "successful";  one  sixth  more  as  " partially  suc- 
cessful " ;  and  nearly  half,  "  unsuccessful."  The  percentage  of  success 
varies  from  73  per  cent,  in  1899,  to  34  per  cent,  in  1886.  The  latter  was 
a  year  of  a  "secondary  "  crisis,  —  almost  a  "panic."  It  seems  to  be  a 
general  truth  that  strikes  are  most  likely  to  succeed  "  on  a  rising  market," 
i.e.  in  times  of  prosperity,  when  manufacturers  are  least  willing  to  stop 
operations.  Over  one-third  the  strikes  took  place  in  the  last  fifth  of 
the  period,  and  some  of  the  most  significant  ones  in  our  history  have 
come  in  even  more  recent  years. 

It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to  trace  in  detail  this  quarter-century  of 
labor  war.     Two  or  three  incidents  only  can  be  mentioned. 


1  The  success  was  sufficient  to  lead  to  a  strike  the  same  summer  among  the 
coal  miners  in  western  Pennsylvania,  where  wages  had  been  cut  so  low,  that, 
with  the  part-time  work  (adopted  in  order  to  limit  output  and  keep  up  price), 
the  best  workman  could  hardly  earn  $15  a  month.  Again  a  considerable 
measure  of  success  resulted. 


710  PEOPLE   AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

a.  The  industrial  depression  of  1893  brought  one  of  the  most  serious 
periods  of  labor  disturbances.  A  picturesque  but  highly  significant 
feature  was  Coxey's  Army  of  Unemployed.  A  successful  business  man  of 
Ohio,  strongly  impressed  with  the  lack  of  public  attention  to  the  need  of 
industrial  reform,  led  an  "army,"  of  some  hundred  men  only,  in  an 
orderly  pilgrimage,  on  foot  of  course,  from  central  Ohio  to  Washington, 
to  appeal  to  the  National  government  for  relief.  The  "  army"  reached 
the  Capitol  on  May  Day,  1894,  and  was  arrested  and  jailed  for  "  walking 
on  the  grass  "  on  the  Capitol  grounds. 

b.  Of  more  significance  was  the  great  Pullman  Strike  of  the  year 
1894.  The  employees  of  the  Pullman  Car  Company,  residents,  too,  of 
the  Company's  village  of  Pullman,  a  suburb  of  Chicago,  struck  to  avoid 
reduction  of  wages  and  to  secure  redress  of  various  grievances.  The 
American  Railway  Union,  sympathizing  with  the  strikers,  demanded  that 
the  quarrel  be  submitted  to  arbitration  ;  and,  when  the  Company  refused, 
the  sympathizing  Union  refused  to  handle  Pullman  cars  on  any  road. 
Twenty-three  leading  roads  were  involved.  The  companies  had  con- 
tracts, in  most  cases  at  least,  making  them  liable  for  damages  if  they  did 
not  use  these  cars^;  and  apart  from  this  fact,  they  were  bitterly  resolved 
to  crush  the  "sympathetic  strike"  idea.  The  disorders  extended  from 
Cincinnati  to  San  Francisco  ;  but  Chicago  was  the  storm  center.  Hun- 
dreds of  freight  cars  were  looted  and  burned  by  the  city  mob,  which 
found  its  opportunity  for  plunder  in  the  situation  ;  and  the  loss  and 
crime  were  charged  upon  the  strikers  by  many  respectable  elements  of 
society.  Governor  Altgeld  plainly  sympathized  with  the  strike,  and  de- 
clared that  the  railway  companies  were  paralyzed,  not  by  strike  violence, 
but  by  a  legitimate  situation,  since  they  could  not  secure  men  to  run 
their  cars  without  Federal  assistance.  President  Cleveland,  however, 
broke  the  strike  by  using  Federal  troops  to  insure  the  running  of  trains 
—  on  the  ground  of  preventing  interference  with  the  United  States  mails, 
and  of  putting  down  "conspiracies"  which  interfered  with  interstate 
commerce.  The  business  interests  of  the  country  promptly  indorsed  the 
1 'resident's  action,  —  which,  however,  was  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why 
the  more  radical  wing  of  Democrats  were  driven  into  political  opposition 
(§  430). 

c.  In  May,  1902,  the  coal  miners  of  Pennsylvania  struck  for  an  in- 
crease of  wages  and  the  recognition  of  their  union.  The  strike  lasted 
five  months  and  caused  a  general  coal  famine.  John  Mitcfyell,  the  head 
of  the  miners'  union,  by  his  admirable  handling  of  the  situation,  won 
recognition  as  one  of  the  ablest  and  greatest  men  America  has  produced. 
The  operators,  consisting  of  a  few  railway  presidents,  who  enjoyed  a 
complete  monopoly  of  the  anthracite  coal  trade,  lost  public  sympathy  by 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  711 

an  insane  "divine  right"  claim  from  Mr.  Baer,  one  of  the  presidents, 
that  the  public  ought  to  be  content  to  leave  the  matter  to  "  the  Christian 
men  to  whom  God,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  has  given  the  control  of  the 
property  interests  of  the  country.'1'1  Finally  President  Roosevelt  brought 
the  operators  and  John  Mitchell  into  a  conference  (October  3).  Mitchell 
offered  promptly  to  submit  his  case  to  a  board  of  arbitrators  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  President,  and  promised  that  the  miners  would  return  to 
work  at  once,  without  waiting  for  the  investigation,  if  such  a  course 
should  be  agreed  to  by  the  operators.  The  operators  refused  arbitration, 
and  instead  called  on  the  President  for  troops.  Two  weeks  later,  how- 
ever, Roosevelt  succeeded  in  bringing  to  bear  pressure  from  J.  Pierpont 
Morgan,  the  financial  backer  and  real  master  of  the  coal  trust.  Then 
the  operators  agreed  to  arbitration.  Five  months  later  (March,  1908), 
the  board  of  arbitrators  made  its  report,  sustaining  the  demands  of  the 
miners  in  almost  every  point.  The  action  of  President  Roosevelt  was 
acclaimed  by  the  sympathizers  of  labor  everywhere  as  a  happy  contrast 
to  the  action  of  Cleveland  nine  years  before  at  Chicago.  Incidentally  it 
is  well  to  note  that  the  mining  companies  simply  added  to  the  price  of 
coal  much  more  than  the  arbitration  had  cost  them. 

447.  Government  by  Injunction.  —  During  the  progress  of 
the  Pullman  strike  (July  2,  1894),  a  Federal  District  Court 
issued  a  "  blanket  injunction,"  ordering  all  members  of  the 
American  Railway  Union  to  cease  interfering  with  the  busi- 
ness of  the  twenty -three  roads  (§  446  b).  Eugene  V.  Debs, 
president  of  the  Union,  continued  to  manage  the  strike,  and, 
two  weeks  later,  was  arrested  for  contempt  of  court.  Investiga- 
tion of  the  charge  did  not  take  place  for  several  months  — 
during  which  Debs  remained  in  jail  rather  than  ask  for  bail 
on  such  a  charge  —  and  then  he  was  condemned  to  six  months' 
imprisonment.  In  effect  Debs  was  punished  by  a  year's  im- 
prisonment for  an  act  which  no  legislature  or  jury  had  ever  de- 
clared a  crime,  and  he  was  deprived  of  his  constitutional  privilege 
of  a  jury  trial.  The  principle  was  not  new ;  but  this  sort  of 
"  court  government  by  injunction  "  came  into  new  prominence 
by  this  incident.  Organized  labor,  ever  since,  has  made  re- 
sistance to  "government  by  injunction"  one  of  its  cardinal 
principles.  In  1912  an  "  anti-injunction  bill "  passed  the  lower 
House  of  Congress,  but  failed  in  the  Senate. 


712  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

Debs  was  already  under  charge  of  violating  the  laws  regulating  inter- 
state commerce  ;  but  on  a  trial  for  this  offense  he  would  have  had  a 
jury.  The  action  of  the  court  deprived  him  of  this  right,  and  removed 
all  the  securities  of  the  ordinary  law.  Says  Davis  K.  Dewey,  —  the 
practice  tended  to  make  ' '  the  courts  no  longer  judicial,  but  a  part  of 
the  executive  branch  of  the  government  "  ;  and  eventually  to  make  "  the 
judiciary  either  tyrannical  or  contemptible"  {National  Problems,  296). 

The  courts  have  held  that  an  agreement  among  employees  to  refuse 
to  work  is  permissible  —  in  the  absence  of  a  definite  contract  —  and 
that  persons  directly  aggrieved  may  legally  combine  to  boycott  an  em- 
ployer ;  but  they  have  elaborated  a  theory  that  the  "  sympathetic  strike  " 
and  the  "  secondary  boycott  "  are  illegal.  No  statutes  so  declare,  how- 
ever. This  law  is  wholly  judge-made.  Nor  has  any  jury  ever  passed 
upon  it.    It  is  always  administered  by  process  of  injunction. 

In  1907  the  Bucks  Stove  Company  refused  to  recognize  Union  labor. 
In  March  the  American  Federation  declared  a  boycott  against  that  com- 
pany, publishing  its  name  in  the  official  organ  of  the  Federation  in  an 
"unfair"  and  "we  don't  patronize"  list.  The  company  obtained  an 
injunction  against  such  publication  from  a  judge  of  the  Federal  Court  for 
the  District  of  Columbia,  on  the  ground  that  the  boycott  was  in  violation 
of  law.  No  attempt  was  made  to  punish  the  boycotters  by  a  regular 
trial,  where  they  would  have  had  the  advantage  of  a  jury.  The  officers 
of  the  Federation  denied  the  justice  of  the  injunction,  but  pretended  to 
recognize  its  authority,  advertising  the  fact  that  they  had  been  enjoined 
from  publishing  the  name  of  the  Bucks  Stove  Company  on  their  "  unfair  " 
list.  For  this  "contempt  of  court"  in  "evading"  or  disregarding  an 
injunction,  three  great  labor  leaders,  —  Gompers,  Mitchell,  and  Morrison 
(President,  Vice  President,  and  Secretary  of  the  Federation)  were  sen- 
tenced to  a  year's  imprisonment  by  Judge  Wright  of  the  same  Federal 
Court.  Judge  Wright,  who  owed  his  appointment  to  Boss  Cox  of  Cincin- 
nati, one  of  the  most  corrupt  political  bosses  America  has  ever  produced, 
signalized  his  decision  by  what  the  Outlook  (January  2,  1909)  condemned 
as  a  "passionate  attack"  upon  organized  labor.  The  labor  leaders  ap- 
pealed to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  decision  of  Judge  Wright  was  set 
aside  on  the  ground  that  the  acts  of  the  accused  men  after  the  injunction 
had  not  amounted  to  a  violation  of  the  injunction. 

448.  The  "Closed  Shop"  has  been  a  chief  aim  of  labor  in  all 
its  use  of  strike  and  boycott.  Labor  believes  it  must  have 
"  collective  bargaining  "  in  order  to  deal  with  capital  on  any- 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  713 

thing  like  equal  terms.  The  individual  laborer  must  accept 
any  terms  offered  him.  Accordingly,  members  of  a  union 
contend  that  every  worker  in  their  trade  must  be  persuaded, 
or  forced,  to  join  the  union  or  leave  the  industry.  The  man 
who  stays  out  gets  whatever  better  conditions  may  be  secured 
by  collective  bargaining,  without  giving  his  help  toward  it; 
and,  in  time  of  trial,  he  becomes  a  traitor  to  the  cause  of  labor 
by  underbidding  the  union  standard. 

Wherever  there  is  a  chance  for  success,  the  union  man  refuses  to  work 
on  the  same  job  with  non-union  men,  even  of  different  trades.  Union 
plasterers  will  leave  a  house  on  which  a  non-union  carpenter  is  engaged. 
A  manufacturing  company  which  employs  non-union  labor  may  find  its 
output  boycotted  by  all  unions  in  other  industries.  Or  a  strike  may  be 
declared  against  a  railroad  which  handles  such  output. 

The  traditions  of  our  past  age  of  individualism,  and  ignorance  of  the 
terrible  needs  of  labor,  cause  many  liberal-minded  people  to  look  upon 
the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  as  "un-American."  It  is  easily  desig- 
nated as  tyranny  toward  the  individual  laborer,  who  is  no  longer  "per- 
mitted "  to  work  on  his  own  terms  (which  in  practice  means  always  some 
employer's  terms) .  Sometimes,  too,  like  all  sympathetic  strikes,  a  strike 
against  a  fair  employer  who  himself  recognizes  union  labor,  but  who  has 
contracts  with  firms  that  do  not,  involves  serious  injustice.  The  unions, 
too,  fall  often  into  the  hands  of  self-seeking  leaders,  or  of  treacherous 
ones,  and  are  used  to  bad  ends  ;  and  the  most  sincere  leaders  are  no  more 
beyond  possibility  of  error,  in  their  puzzling  duties,  than  other  men  are. 
But  the  sins  of  organized  labor,  while  often  more  violent,  are  usually 
less  dangerous  to  human  progress,  than  the  sins  of  organized  capital 
which  commonly  provoke  them.  From  its  viewpoint,  talk  by  a  "  scab" 
of  his  individual  "right"  to  bargain  his  own  labor  is  as  much  out  of 
place  as  like  vaporings  by  a  deserter  in  war.  Organized  labor  is  the  only 
hope  to-day  against  industrial  serfdom.  Its  victory  means  better  conditions 
of  life  for  the  masses  of  mankind. 

449.  Violence  and  Society.  —  The  public  long  tried  to  deceive 
itself  with  worn-out  platitudes  as  to  identity  of  interest  be- 
tween labor  and  capital.  Those  interests  are  identical  in  the 
production  of  wealth :  in  its  distribution,  under  present  condi- 
tions, they  are  diametrically  opposed.  What  one  gets,  the  other 
fails  to  get.     Society  has  been  compelled  to  open  its  eyes  in 


714  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

part  to  the  warlike  nature  of  the  relation  between  the  two 
forces ;  but  its  sympathies  are  effectually  alienated  by  the  use 
of  violence.  The  unions  know  this;  and,  from  policy  and 
principle,  they  commonly  do  their  best  to  prevent  violence. 
When  the  more  desperate  and  ill-controlled  strikers,  or  their 
sympathizers,  do  use  violence  in  a  strike,  well-to-do  society 
promptly  calls  for  troops  and  declares  that  "  now  the  time  for 
considering  the  wrongs  of  labor  has  gone :  it  remains  only  to 
restore  order."  Certainly,  order  must  be  maintained :  but  the 
fundamental  evil  in  the  whole  matter  lies  in  the  fact  that  for 
the  people  who  use  this  argument  most  glibly,  "  the  time  for 
considering  the  wrongs  of  labor  "  has  never  arrived. 

Almost  every  long-continued  strike,  except  in  the  highly  skilled  indus- 
tries, where  strikes  are  rare  anyway,  does  see  some  violence.  The  time 
comes  when  the  leaders  can  no  longer  restrain  ignorant  and  passionate 
followers,  some  of  whom  see  their  homes  lost  on  mortgages,  or  their  chil- 
dren die,  for  lack  of  their  usual  wages.  Then  come  fire  and  dynamite. 
The  unions  assert,  too,  that  sometimes  the  employers  hire  ruffians  to  de- 
stroy their  own  property  in  order  to  represent  such  destruction  as  the 
work  of  strikers  ;  and  some  instances  of  this  sort,  amazing  as  the  fact  is, 
seem  authenticated. 

More  ominous  than  violence  in  a  stubborn  strike  is  its  pres- 
ence in  more  ordinary  times.  On  the  Pacific  coast,  the  name 
war  is  no  metaphor  for  the  struggle  between  capital  and  labor. 
The  Los  Angeles  Times  has  been  particularly  bitter  against 
labor.  October  1,  1910,  the  Times  building  was  destroyed  in 
an  explosion  which  cost  twenty-one  lives.  Two  McNamara 
brothers  (one  of  them  the  Secretary  of  the  International  Asso- 
ciation of  Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers)  were  charged 
with  the  crime  by  a  skillful  detective.  The  circumstances  of 
their  removal  from  their  Indiana  home,  with  disregard  of  the 
extradition  law's  formalities,  smacked  of  kidnaping;  and  at 
first  the  rank  and  file  of  organized  labor  (including  such  leaders 
as  John  Mitchell  and  Samuel  Gompers)  believed  fiercely  that 
the  brothers  were  victims  of  a  dastardly  conspiracy  which  was 
taking  advantage  of  a  gas  explosion  to  discredit  labor.     But 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  715 

with  the  trial  (November,  1911)  came  a  thunderbolt.  The 
brothers  pleaded  guilty  ;  and  apparently  they  were  only  part 
of  a  group  of  labor  men  who  have  been  engaged  in  similar 
crime.  Capitalist  associations  broke  forth  in  bitter  triumph. 
Labor,  astounded,  realized  that  it  had  received  a  desperate 
wound,  from  which  it  may  need  years  to  recover.  On  the  other 
hand,  some  thinkers  hope  faintly,  that,  after  the  gust  of  passion 
has  passed,  society  may  awaken  to  the  deep  seriousness  of  the 
situation. 

Society  must  awaken  not  only  to  the  wrongs  of  labor  but  to  its  own 
loss.  It  foots  the  bills  in  every  strike.  What  the  employer  loses  is  quickly 
made  good  to  him  by  increased  prices  to  the  consumer.  What  the  laborer 
loses  is  added  largely  to  the  cost  of  prisons  and  asylums.  Even  while 
the  strike  is  in  progress,  the  "  innocent  bystander  "  often  suffers  as  bitterly 
as  the  combatants  —  just  as  the  burghers  of  a  medieval  city  often  found 
their  daily  marketing  interrupted,  and  sometimes  had  heads  broken  or 
houses  burned,  in  the  private  wars  between  lawless  barons  in  their 
streets.  Society  must  continue  to  suffer  such  ills,  as  medieval  society 
did,  until  it  becomes  resolute  to  compel  justice  on  both  sides.  A  begin- 
ning in  this  direction  is  attempted  in  the  creation  of  boards  of  concilia- 
tion and  arbitration.1 

450.  Gains.  —  The  strike  and  the  boycott  have  been  neces- 
sary, probably,  to  maintain  existence  for  organized  labor ;  but 
the  various  positive  gains  have  come  mainly  through  peaceful 
influence  upon  legislation  and  public  opinion. 

a.  Many  States  compel  payment  of  ivages  at  regular  weekly 
periods  and  in  cash  —  instead  of  in  truck  —  though  some  of 
this  legislation  has  been  nullified  by  the  courts. 


1  This  is  a  good  subject  for  special  report.  Such  boards  exist  in  more  than 
half  the  States.  Their  powers,  however,  are  insufficient  to  secure  industrial 
peace  —  granted  that  peace  can  be  found  along  this  line.  Some  States  propose 
at  least  to  compel  each  party,  before  resorting  to  strike  or  lockout,  to  submit 
its  wrongs  to  full  inquiry  by  such  a  board,  so  that  the  public  may  have  au- 
thoritative and  impartial  information,  and  so  give  its  sympathies  intelligently. 
Some  Australian  states  have  made  arbitration  of  labor  disputes  compulsory; 
but  it  is  not  yet  demonstrated  that  such  a  law  will  work. 


716  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

b.  After,  the  Civil  War,  the  eight-hour  day x  took  the  place  in 
labor  agitation  which  the  ten-hour  day  had  held  thirty  years 
before.  In  '68  Congress  adopted  the  principle  for  all  labor 
employed  directly  by  the  government.  Many  States  and  munici- 
palities have  followed  this  example  for  public  works;  and  in 
1912  Congress  enacted  that  the  principle  should  apply  to  all 
work  done  for  the  government  by  contractors  as  well  as  to 
work  done  directly  by  its  own  employees.  State  legislation 
regarding  the  labor  day  for  adult  men,  except  on  government 
work,  is  impossible  so  far,  because  of  the  disposition  of  the 
courts  to  hold  that  such  legislation  interferes  with  the  consti- 
tutional right  of  "  freedom  of  contract " ;  but  some  skilled 
unions  have  been  able  to  enforce  the  rule  for  their  members. 

c.  This  hold-over  plea  from  a  past  age  is  honestly  meant,  probably ; 
but  in  practice  it  amounts  to  using  the  name  of  liberty  to  bow  labor 
before  capital.  In  various  States  the  courts  until  recently  nullified  leg- 
islation to  limit  the  working  day  even  for  women,  on  precisely  the  same 
ground  (in  Illinois  in  1895,  and  in  New  York  in  191 1  2).     Under  the 

1 "  We  mean  to  make  things  over ;  we're  tired  of  toil  for  nought 

But  bare  enough  to  live  on :  never  an  hour  for  thought. 

We  want  to  feel  the  sunshine ;  we  want  to  smell  the  flowers ; 

We're  sure  that  God  has  willed  it,  and  we  mean  to  have  eight  hours. 

We're  summoning  our  forces  from  shipyard,  shop,  and  mill: 

Eight  hours  for  work,  eight  hours  for  rest,  eight  hours  for  what  we  will!  " 

—  J.  G.  Blanchard. 

2  Referring  to  this  decision,  in  a  speech  in  New  York  in  November,  1911, 
Theodore  Roosevelt  declared  that  experience  showed  that  while  the  people  may 
be  aroused  to  sound  and  high  thinking,  and  their  legislative  and  executive 
officers  may  try  to  carry  out  their  purpose,  yet  the  whole  movement  may  come 
to  naught  "  because  certain  judges  are  steeped  in  some  outworn  political  or 
social  philosophy  and  totally  misapprehend  their  relation  to  the  people  and  to 
the  public  needs.  ...  I  am  asking  you  to  declare  unequivocally  that  it  is  for 
the  people  themselves  to  say  whether  or  not  this  policy  [a  shorter  labor  day] 
shall  be  adopted,  and  that  no  body  of  officials,  no  matter  how  well  meaning, 
nor  personally  honest,  no  matter  whether  they  be  legislators,  judges,  or  execu- 
tives, have  any  right  to  say  that  we,  the  people,  shall  not  make  laws  to  pro- 
tect women  and  children,  to  protect  men  in  hazardous  industry,  to  protect 
men,  women,  and  children  from  working  under  unhealthy  conditions  or  for 
manifestly  excessive  hours,  and  to  prevent  the  conditions  of  life  in  tenement 
houses  from  becoming  intolerable.    It  is,  I  believe,  an  advantage  to  have  fixed 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  717 

compulsion  of  public  opinion,  the  courts  in  these  same  States  have  found 
it  well  to  reverse  their  earlier  decisions,  finding  sanction  for  so  doing  in 
the  "  police  powers  of  the  State,"  —  to  maintain  a  reasonable  standard  of 
health  and  public  welfare.  Radical  thinkers  look  to  an  extension  of  the 
same  principle  to  justify  legal  limitation  of  hours  for  men  and  even  to 
establish  a  minimum  wage  ("  living  wage  ")  such  as  to  insure  each  laborer 
income  sufficient  to  bring  up  a  family  under  wholesome  conditions.1 

Justice  Holmes,  in  delivering  a  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Federal  Su- 
preme Court,  has  recently  said :  "  The  police  power  extends  to  all  great 
public  needs.  It  may  be  put  forth  in  aid  of  what  is  sanctioned  by  usage, 
or  held  by  the  prevailing  morality  or  by  strong  and  preponderant  opinion  to  be 
greatly  and  immediately  necessary  to  the  public  welfare.'" 

d.  A  scientific  investigation  of  labor  conditions,  by  the  States, 
has  been  one  of  the  wisest  demands  of  labor.  In  1869  a  Labor 
Reform,  party  secured  a  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  in 
Massachusetts.  In  the  eighties  the  Knights  of  Labor  secured 
such  a  bureau  in  the  Federal  government  and  in  many  States. 
More  than  half  the  States  now  (1913)  have  such  departments, 
usually  headed  by  labor  representatives  and  charged  with 
authority  to  enforce  factory  legislation.  In  1903  the  Federal 
Bureau  became  an  independent  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  with  its  head  a  Cabinet  officer,  and  in  1913  the  Labor 
end  of  this  department  was  made  a  separate  Department  of 
Labor. 

e.  It  has  been  easier  to  secure  limitation  of  the  ivorking  day 
for  children  than  for  adults,  because  public  sympathy  was  more 


in  the  court  the  power  to  state  that  a  legislative  act  is  unconstitutional,  but 
only  provided  that  the  power  is  exercised  with  the  greatest  wisdom  and  self- 
restraint.  If  the  courts  continue  to  use  it  with  the  recklessness  that  has  too 
often  been  shown  in  the  past,  it  is  almost  inevitable  that  efforts  should  be  made 
to  amend  it.  .  .  .  I  do  believe  that  this  people  must  ultimately  control  its 
own  destinies,  and  cannot  surrender  the  right  of  ultimate  control  to  a  judge 
any  more  than  to  a  legislator  or  an  executive." 

1  This  has  not  yet  been  formally  demanded,  except  by  the  Socialists.  It 
implies,  of  course,  that  to  the  unemployed  in  private  industries  society  shall 
offer  employment  in  making  roads,  draining  swamps,  reclaiming  deserts, 
and  other  public  works,  such  as  may  quickly  add  to  the  productive  power  of 
society. 


718  PEOPLE   AND  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

easily  aroused  and  because  the  common  law  did  not  "  protect " 
minors  by  the  "  freedom  of  contract "  rule.  In  1874  and  1879 
Massachusetts,  through  the  influence  of  organized  labor  and  of 
the  Labor  Bureau's  statistics,  made  the  first  efficient  provision 
in  America  for  limitation  of  hours  of  labor  for  women  and  chil- 
dren (ten  hours  a  day),  with  adequate  inspection  to  enforce  the 
law.  During  the  next  decade,  this  example  was  followed,  for 
children  at  least,  in  most  of  the  manufacturing  States  of  thai 
day,  with  further  legislation  prohibiting  employment  of  children 
of  school  age  —  at  least  until  a  certain  proficiency  in  studies 
had  been  attained.  Between  1880  and  1890  the  number  of 
children  in  manufacturing  establishments  fell  off  a  third ;  but 
after  1890,  the  numbers  increased  once  more,  with  the  growth 
of  factories  in  the  South  —  where  proper  regulation  of  this 
crime  against  youth  is  sadly  lacking.1 

/  Factory  acts  have  been  enacted  in  more  than  half  the  States 
(not  yet  in  the  South)  requiring  employers  to  "  fence  "  danger- 
ous machinery,  to  arrange  for  escape  from  possible  fire,  and  to 
provide  adequate  ventilation  and  freedom  from  dampness  and 
extreme  temperatures.  Such  legislation  is  enforced  through 
inspection  by  the  State  Labor  Bureaus. 

g.  Compensation  to  workmen  for  injuries  received  in  the 
course  of  their  toil  has  made  less  progress,  though  here  too 
gain  begins  to  show.  The  Common  Law  permits  an  employee  to 
recover  by  a  suit  for  damages.  The  cost,  however,  is  too  great  for 
poor  men  in  any  but  the  gravest  cases ;  and,  if  the  accident 
was  caused  by  the  carelessness  of  a  "  fellow  servant,"  no  re- 
covery is  possible  under  the  Common  Law,  as  the  courts  have 


1  Labor  organizations  have  expressed  desire  to  coerce  these  negligent  States 
by  Federal  law  forbidding  railways  to  transport  goods  produced  by  child  labor. 
Constitutional  authority  for  such  legislation  is  claimed  under  the  power  of 
Congress  to  regulate  commerce,  —  a  power  which  has  shown  itself  capable  of 
some  remarkable  developments  in  the  past.  A  careful  investigation  by 
Hannah  R.  Sewell  {Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  May,  1904)  proves  that 
in  many  Northern  States  the  laws  fixing  the  age  limit  are  very  generally 
evaded.  In  1912  the  Federal  government  created  a  Children's  Bureau  to 
prevent  such  abuses  and  to  promote  children's  welfare. 


THE   LABOR  MOVEMENT  719 

interpreted  it.  Happily,  about  half  the  States,  by  employers' 
liability  laws,  have  abolished  this  vicious  principle;  and  some 
of  them  have  made  compensation  almost  automatic  —  without 
the  intervention  of  legal  processes.  When  the  practice  becomes 
general,  compensation  for  accidents  will  become  an  item  in  the 
general  expense  account  of  all  factories,  —  part  of  the  operat- 
ing expenses,  —  and  will  be  paid,  as  it  should  be,  by  society, 
in  the  price  of  the  goods.  At  the  same  time,  each  employer 
will  have  an  inducement  to  precautions,  since,  by  reducing 
accidents  below  the  average,  he  will  add  to  his  profits. 

In  this  whole  matter  America,  with  its  constitutional  protection  to 
property  interests,1  lags  far  behind  Germany  and  England.  No  Other  in- 
dustrial country  needs  such  legislation  as  much  as  America.  No  other 
one  has  so  large  a  proportion  of  preventable  accidents.  In  our  coal  mines 
alone,  in  1908,  three  thousand  men  were  killed  and  ten  thousand  injured. 
The  family  wreckage  that  goes  with  such  loss  of  life  by  the  breadwinners 
is  even  more  appalling.  Unless  this  slaughter  is  checked  by  law,  or  by 
greater  sense  of  responsibility  in  employers,  American  industry  threatens 
to  become  more  wasteful  of  human  life  and  social  welfare  than  ancient 
war  was. 

451.  Labor  and  Politics.  —  The  modern  labor  movement  has  hesi- 
tated to  identify  itself  with  a  political  party.  Many  think  such  action 
unwise,  and  point  to  certain  historical  facts  to  justify  the  position.  In 
the  '6o's  a  Union  Labor  party  elected  representatives  to  various  State 

1  An  advanced  Workingman's  Compensation  Law  has  been  recently  enacted 
in  Wisconsin,  and  another  in  Washington.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  Wisconsin  makes  a  beacon  in  the  movement  to  emancipate  American  courts 
from  their  ancient  trend.  A  favorite  device  for  rendering  Compensation  acts 
nugatory  has  been  for  the  employer  to  require  his  workmen,  as  a  condition 
of  getting  work  at  all,  to  sign  a  contract,  "  contracting  themselves  out  "  from 
the  benefits  of  the  law.  Courts  have  always  upheld  such  "  free  "  contracts. 
The  advanced  Wisconsin  law  expressly  declares  that  such  "  contracting  out " 
shall  be  illegal  and  worthless.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  in  upholding 
this  excellent  provision,  says  (November,  1911) : 

"  When  an  eighteenth  century  constitution  forms  the  charter  of  liberty  of  a 
twentieth  century  government,  must  its  general  provisions  be  construed  and 
interpreted  by  an  eighteenth  century  mind,  surrounded  by  eighteenth  century 
conditions  and  ideals  ?  Clearly  not.  This  were  to  command  the  race  to  halt 
in  its  progress,  to  stretch  the  state  upon  a  veritable  bed  of  Procrustes." 


720  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

legislatures,  and  in  the  '70's  it  held  imposing  National  conventions  and 
nominated  a  candidate  for  the  presidency.  Some  favorable  legislation 
was  secured,  but  the  conviction  that  selfish  leaders  were  using  the  or- 
ganization to  promote  personal  ambitions  wrecked  the  movement.  The 
Knights  of  Labor  for  many  years  kept  out  of  partisan  politics,  working 
instead  within  both  parties  for  their  ends ;  and  when  they  did  identify 
themselves  with  the  Populist  and  the  free-silver  Democrats,  they  declined 
in  influence. 
'  *  Accordingly,  the  American  Federation  kept  free  from  partisan  affiliation 
until  1908.  Then  it  declared  against  the  Republican  candidate  for  the 
presidency,  because  he  favored  the  judicial  injunction  in  labor  cases. 
In  1912,  again,  the  officers  favored  the  Democratic  candidate.  Some 
leaders,  moreover,  believe  that  organized  labor  should  become  a  distinct 
political  party,  as  in  England,  and  they  insist  that  only!  so  can  an  ad- 
vance be  made  upon  war  by  strikes  and  boycotts.  Such  men  point,  too, 
to  the  fact  that,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  party,  the  "  unskilled  "  labor 
vote,  and  much  of  the  "  union  "  vote,  is  going  over  rapidly  to  the  Social- 
ists, who  now  alone  claim  directly  to  stand  for  labor. 

II.    SOCIALISTS  AND   THE    SINGLE   TAX 

452.  Socialism.  —  While  the  Labor  Union  has  been  appealing 
to  skilled  workers,  Socialism  has  been  making  rapid  converts 
among  unskilled  laborers  on  the  streets  and  among  students  in 
the  closet.  To-day  it  is  a  force  to  be  reckoned  with  in  Ameri- 
can life  ;  and  therefore  it  must  be  understood.  The  time  has 
gone  when  ignorant  critics  could  safely  and  contemptuously 
dispose  of  it  by  invective  or  by  confounding  it  with  either 
anarchy  or  communism. 

Modern  Socialism  points  out  that  a  few  capitalists  practi- 
cally control  the  means  of  producing  wealth  ("  the  machinery 
of  production  and  transportation  ").  This,  they  argue,  is  the 
essential  evil  in  industrial  conditions.  Their  remedy  is  to 
have  society  as  a  whole  step  into  the  place  of  those  few,  taking  over 
the  ownership  and  management  (1)  of  land,  including,  of 
course,  mines,  water  power,  and  all  right-of-way,  (2)  of  trans- 
portation, and  (3)  of  all  machinery  employed  in  producing 
wealth.     Private  ownership  for  private  enjoyment  and  consump- 


SOCIALISM  721 

Hon  would  then,  they  argue,  regulate  itself  without  injury  to 
the  common  life. 

For  immediate  purposes,  the  party  platform  is  more  re- 
stricted, —  as  will  appear  from  the  following  statement  adopted 
in  1908  by  a  National  Convention  and  ratified  (with  amendments) 
by  a  membership  referendum  in  that  year  and  in  1909. 

General  Demands 

1.  The  immediate  government  relief  for  the  unemployed  workers  by 
building  schools,  by  reforesting  of  cut -over  and  waste  lands,  by  reclama- 
tion of  arid  tracts,  and  the  building  of  canals,  and  by  extending  all  other 
useful  public  works.  All 'persons  employed  on  such  works  shall  be 
employed  directly  by  the  government  under  an  eight-hour  workday  and 
at  the  prevailing  union  wages.   .  .  . 

2.  The  collective  ownership  of  railroads,  telegraphs,  telephones,  steam- 
boat lines  and  all  other  means  of  social  transportation  and  communication. 

3.  The  collective  ownership  of  all  industries  which  are  organized  on 
a  national  scale  and  in  which  competition  has  virtually  ceased  to  exist. 

4.  The  extension  of  the  public  domain  to  include  mines,  quarries,  oil 
wells,  forests,  and  water  power. 

5.  The  scientific  reforestation  of  timber  lands,  and  the  reclamation  of 
swamp  lands.  The  land  so  reforested  or  reclaimed  to  be  permanently 
retained  as  a  part  of  the  public  domain. 

6.  The  absolute  freedom  of  press,  speech,  and  assemblage. 

Industrial  Demands 

7.  The  improvement  of  the  industrial  condition  of  the  workers. 

(a)  By  shortening  the  workday  in  keeping  with  the  increased  produc- 
tiveness of  machinery. 

(&)  By  securing  to  every  worker  a  rest  period  of  not  less  than  a  day 
and  a  half  in  each  week. 

(c)    By  securing  a  more  effective  inspection  of  workshops  and  factories. 

(<f)  By  forbidding  the  employment  of  children  under  sixteen  years  of 
age. 

(e)  By  forbidding  the  interstate  transportation  of  the  products  of  child 
labor,  of  convict  labor,  and  of  all  uninspected  factories. 

(f)  By  abolishing  official  charity,  and  substituting  in  its  place  com- 
pulsory insurance  against  unemployment,  illness,  accidents,  invalidism, 
old  age,  and  death. 


722  PEOPLE   AND   GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

Political  Demands 

8.  The  extension  of  inheritance  taxes,  graduated  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  the  bequests  and  to  the  nearness  of  kin. 

9.  A  graduated  income  tax. 

10.  Unrestricted  and  equal  suffrage  for  men  and  women,  and  we 
pledge  ourselves  to  engage  in  an  active  campaign  in  that  direction. 

11.  The  initiative  and  referendum,  proportional  representation,  and 
the  right  of  recall. 

12.  The  abolition  of  the  Senate. 

13.  The  abolition  of  the  power  usurped  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  legislation  enacted  by 
Congress.  National  laws  to  be  repealed  or  abrogated  only  by  act  of 
Congress  or  by  a  referendum  of  the  whole  people. 

14.  That  the  Constitution  be  made  amendable  by  majority  vote. 

15.  The  enactment  of  further  measures  for  general  education  and  for 
the  conservation  of  health.  The  bureau  of  education  to  'be  made  a  depart- 
ment.    The  creation  of  a  department  of  public  health. 

16.  The  separation  of  the  present  bureau  of  labor  from  the  department 
of  commerce  and  labor,  and  the  establishment  of  a  department  of 
labor. 

17.  That  all  judges  be  elected  by  the  people  for  short  terms,  and  that 
the  power  to  issue  injunctions  shall  be  curbed  by  immediate  legislation. 

18.  The  free  administration  of  justice. 

Such  measures  of  relief  as  we  may  be  able  to  force  from  capitalism  are 
but  a  preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole  power  of  government, 
in  order  that  they  may  thereby  lay  hold  of  the  whole  system  of  industry 
and  thus  come  to  their  rightful  inheritance. 

Except  for  the  references  to  the  Senate  and  the  Judiciary, 
this  political  program  finds  much  sympathy  among  classes  of 
society  who  rail  at  the  name  Socialism. 

The  Socialists  have  usually  found  their  main  strength  in 
manufacturing  towns.  Accordingly,  they  have  turned  their 
attention  largely  to  political  contests  in  such  centers.  In  1908 
they  captured  the  whole  city  government  of  Milwaukee,  elect- 
ing Victor  Berger  also  to  Congress.  In  1910  they  carried  ten 
cities  in  Ohio  alone.  In  1912  they  doubled  their  previous  vote 
for  President,  reaching  a  total  of  nearly  900,000,  representing 
more  than  four  million  people.     Most  significant  of  all,  —  they 


SINGLE   TAXERS  723 

have  shown  surprising  strength  in  many  small  towns  in  purely 
agricultural  communities.1 

453.  The  Single  Tax.  —  In  1879  Henry  George  published 
Progress  and  Poverty.  This  brilliant  book,  to  its  converts, 
transformed  "  the  dismal  science  "  of  political  economy  into  a  re- 
ligion of  hope.  George  teaches  that  land  values  are  created  by 
the  growth  of  population.  They  are  a  social  product,  —  not 
earned  by  the  individual.  Society  therefore  should  take  them. 
It  can  do  so  by  taxing  land  up  to  the  rental  value  of  unimproved 
land  equal  in  location  and  quality.  This  taxation  would  in- 
clude, of  course,  the  full  value  of  the  use  of  city  streets  to 
transportation  companies  and  lighting  companies,  and  of  rail- 
road right  of  way  —  unless  the  public  chose  to  keep  such  enter- 
prises wholly  in  its  own  hands.  Thus  taxation  would  reach 
all  "  natural  monopolies." 

The  advocates  believe  that  such  a  tax  would  exceed  present  public 
expenditure  and  make  other  taxation  unnecessary.  Therefore  it  is  styled 
the  "  Single  Tax."  Other  taxation,  it  is  urged,  "  penalizes  industry." 
The  Single  Tax  takes  from  the  individual  only  what  he  has  never 
earned  (the  "unearned  increment"),  and  takes  for  society  only  what 
society  has  created.  Incidentally f  it  would  put  an  end  to  mischievous 
speculation  in  land  —  since  no  one  could  then  afford  to  hold  land,  unused, 
for  a  rise  —  and  it  would  certainly  prevent  many  forms  of  vicious  special 
privilege.  Indeed,  its  converts  usually  hold  that  all  special  privilege  runs 
back  to  private  ownership  of  land  values. 

Apart  from  the  question  of  exact  economic  truth,  the  Single  Tax  doc- 
trine has  been  one  of  the  inspiring  forces  of  the  century  for  the  betterment 
of  man.  Progress  and  Poverty  was  a  trumpet  call,  for  eager  youth  with 
faith  in  humanity,  to  rally  to  a  contest  for  truth  which  should  make 
men  free.  Its  converts,  through  the  ensuing  thirty  years  of  reform,  have 
ever  been  found  foremost  in  movements  to  lift  human  life  to  higher  levels. 

To-day,  in  widely  scattered  parts  of  the  world,  the  theory  is  passing 
into  practice,  especially  in  local  taxation,  —  as  in  parts  of  Australia,  Can- 
ada, Germany,  the  British  Isles  ;  and  its  influence  has  radically  reformed 
old  and  abusive  methods  of  taxation  in  parts  of  America.  .  • 

1  Compare  Modem  History  (index)  for  the  movement  in  Europe. 


724  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

Socialists  believe  in  public  ownership  of  all  the  means  of  production, 
including  machinery ;  Single-Taxers  believe  in  public  ownership  only  of 
all  natural  monopolies.  The  Socialists  agree  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Single 
Tax,  but  do  not  think  it  goes  far  enough.  The  Single-Taxer  believes, 
that,  granted  the  Single  Tax,  extreme  individualism  might  safely  rule  all 
other  social  relations.     They  denounce  socialism  as  tyrannical. 

III.     THE    "PROGRESSIVE"    MOVEMENT 
A.     In  National  Politics 

454.  Theodore  Roosevelt.  —  During  the  closing  twenty  years 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  group  of  aggressive  young  re- 
formers appeared  in  public  life.  The  most  picturesque  of  the 
early  group  perhaps  was  Theodore  Roosevelt  of  New  York,  — 
police  commissioner  of  New  York  city,  Civil  Service  Commis- 
sioner (§  421),  Colonel  of  the  "  Rough  Riders  "  in  the  Spanish 
War,  Governor  of  New  York.  By  1900  Roosevelt  had  begun 
to  loom  up  as  a  possible  presidential  candidate,  to  the  dread  of 
the  Republican  machine.  In  the  Republican  Convention  of 
that  year  the  bosses  (Piatt,  Quay,  and  Hanna)  joined  forces  to 
shelve  him  by  nominating  him  for  the  figurehead  vice  presi- 
dency, against  his  vehement  protest.  A  few  months  later,  the 
assassination  of  McKinley  made  him  President;  and,  for  the 
first  time  in  our  history,  an  "  accidental  President "  took  place 
at  once  as  a  popular  leader.1 

In  1904,  now  himself  in  control  of  the  machine,  Roosevelt 
was  triumphantly  re-elected.2  The  seven  and  a  half  years  of 
his  administration  mark  an  epoch  in  history.  In  official  papers 
and  public  addresses  he  denounced  in  startling  terms  the  in- 
solence and  criminal  greed  of  aggregated  capital,  and  roused 
the  masses  for  the  first  time  to  the  need  of  action.     The  actual 

1  Since  the  time  of  Jefferson,  a  century  before,  no  Vice  President  had  been 
elected  to  the  presidency. 

2  The  Democratic  party  in  1904  was  believed  to  be  controlled  mainly  by  the 
Eastern  and  conservative  faction,  represented  by  the  candidate,  Judge  Alton 
B.  Parker.  The  radicals  were  not  satisfied  with  either  candidate;  but,  on 
the  whole,  the  Republican  was  understood  to  promise  most  for  social  progress. 


THE   PROGRESSIVE  MOVEMENT  725 

achievements  of  the  administration  in  its  professed  work  of 
curbing  the  trusts  and  monopolies  were  less  significant.  Still 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  was  revived  by  the  Hep- 
burn Amendment  (§  402) ;  suits  were  pressed  vigorously  against 
many  trusts  under  the  Sherman  act  and  Interstate  Commerce 
law  (§  399) ; *  the  scandalous  conditions  in  the  Chicago  stock- 
yards were  investigated  (§  411) ;  a  Pure  Food  law  2  brought 
the  National  government  to  the  aid  of  the  States  in  the  war- 
fare against  noxious  adulterations.  More  important  was  the 
new  significance  given  the  doctrine  of  conservation  of  National 
resources,  formulated  by  Pinchot,  the  head  of  the  Forestry 
Service,  and  taken  up  and  popularized  by  his  personal  friend, 
the  President,  with  his  instinct  for  graphic  phrase  and  dramatic 
situation. 

The  prime  service  of  the  energetic  President,  however,  lay 
in  arousing  National  interest  in  the  "  Big  Business  "  problem. 
He  was  attacked  by  certain  of  the  interests  as  a  disturber  of 
"prosperity."  But  the  mass  of  the  people  responded  to  his  tak- 
ing appeal  for  "  a  square  deal  to  every  man" ;  and  at  the  close  of 
his  term  he  possessed  a  hold  upon  the  nation  such  as  no  other 
Presidents  have  approached,  with  the  exception  of  Washing- 
ton, Jefferson,  Jackson,  and  Lincoln.  At  the  same  time,  ex- 
treme radicals  disliked  his  aggressive  foreign  policy  and  his 
inclination  to  paternalistic  despotism.  Such  critics  pointed 
out  (1)  that  he  used  his  tremendous  personal  and  official  power 
to  aid  no  other  real  "  progressive  "  in  any  of  the  many  State 
contests  with  Privilege  —  even  when  he  did  not  hinder,  as 
with  LaFollette  in  Wisconsin;  (2)  that  his  trust  prosecutions 
had  not  injured  any  money  king;  (3)  that  he  had  intimate 
personal  relations  with  some  of  the  trust  magnates,  heads  of 
what  he  chose  to  call  "  good  trusts  "  ;  (4)  that  during  his  seven 

1  During  the  preceding  administrations  of  Harrison,  Cleveland,  and 
McKinley,  there  had  heen  in  all  16  prosecutions:  in  Roosevelt's  seven 
years  there  were  44,  though  little  actual  check  to  the  trusts  resulted. 

2  Constitutional  sanction  was  found  in  the  control  of  Congress  over  Inter- 
state Commerce. 


726  PEOPLE  AND   GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

years  the  number  of  trusts  had  greatly  multiplied  and  their  capi- 
talization vastly  increased  (§  410),  along  with  the  new  device  of 
concentrating  power  by  the  system  of  interlocking  directorates  ; 
and  (5)  that  he  had  taken  no  stand  on  the  tariff  question,  in 
which  his  "  good  trusts  "  were  deeply  interested. 

455.  The  Election  of  1908.  —  President  Roosevelt,  with  all 
his  amazing  energy,  proved  himself  a  poor  judge  of  men,  often 
selecting  for  his  chief  aides  those  who  had  little  sympathy  with 
his  ideas.  This  quality  was  manifested  conspicuously  in  1908, 
when  he  forced  William  H.  Taft  upon  the  Republicans  as  his 
successor.  The  Democrats  nominated  Bryan  for  the  third  time. 
Between#the  Roosevelt  Republicans  of  that  time  and  the  Bryan 
Democrats  there  were  many  points  of  likeness  and  sympathy, 
—  especially  on  the  more  immediate  issues  of  the  day;  while 
within  each  party  a  large  class  was  bitterly  opposed  to  these 
reform  policies,  and  desired  a  return  to  the  older  attitude  of 
the  government  as  a  promoter  of  business  prosperity  rather 
than  of  human  welfare.  Owing  to  the  general  confidence  of 
large  masses  in  Roosevelt,  and  to  the  aid  given  the  Republicans 
by  aggregated  wealth,  Taft  was  elected  overwhelmingly. 

As  Roosevelt's  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Taft  had  been  a  loyal 
subordinate;  but  now  it  soon  appeared  that  he  did  not  him- 
self believe  in  the  Roosevelt  policies.  Instead,  he  belonged 
distinctly  in  the  conservative  ranks. 

456.  Betrayal  of  the  Progressives.  —  A  group  of  capitalists  had  been 
trying  to  engross  the  mineral  wealth  of  Alaska,  in  part  by  fraudulent 
entries.  Roosevelt  had  checked  the  proceeding  by  temporarily  withdraw- 
ing the  lands  from  entry  —  by  an  arbitrary  and  possibly  lawless,  but 
certainly  beneficent,  stretch  of  authority.  Richard  Ballinger  had  been 
the  attorney  of  the  grasping  ring  of  capitalists,  and  previously  had  served 
them  with  information  even  while  in  the  service  of  the  government. 
President  Taft  was  induced  to  appoint  this  man  his  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  and  it  seemed  as  though  the  grab  would  then  go  through  under 
his  sanction.  The  President  even  dismissed  both  Pinch ot  (a  devoted 
public  servant  and  a  man  of  high  standing  in  the  nation)  and  also  Louis 
Glavis.  a  subordinate  of  Ballinger,  who  had  gallantly  exposed  the  treach- 
erous designs  of  his  chief  with  necessary  and  proper  disregard  for  official 


PAYNE-ALDRICH  TARIF?  727 

etiquette.1  Happily,  the  sacrifice  of  Glavis,  the  war  waged  month  after 
month  by  Collier's  Weekly,  and  the  consequent  Congressional  investiga- 
tion, even  though  by  a  partial  committee,  compelled  Ballinger  to  resign, 
and  saved  the  Alaskan  wealth  for  the  nation.  No  one  suspected  the 
President  of  corrupt  motives  ;  but  it  was  plain  that  the  corrupt  interests 
had  his  ear. 

Some  other  illustrations  of  his  indifference  to  the  progressive  move- 
ment have  been  noted  (as  in  §  403,  and  note}.  The  most  direct  clash 
came  on  the  tariff  (§  457). 

457.    The  "Insurgents"  and  the  Payne-Aldrich  Tariff.  —  For 

some  ten  years  after  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  Tariff,  pub- 
lic attention  was  engrossed  mainly  in  "  Expansion "  and  in 
currency  and  trust  problems.  Much  of  the  time,  however, 
there  had  been  expectation  of  pending  revision  of  the  tariff ; 
and,  in  1908,  after  the  panic  of  the  preceding  year,  that  issue 
came  again  to  the  front. 

The  Republican  platform  declared  for  a  thoroughgoing  revi- 
sion, promising  a  special  session  of  Congress  for  that  purpose, 
and  asserting  that  duties  ought  only  to  "  equal  the  difference 
between  the  cost  of  production  at  home  and  abroad,  together 
with  a  reasonable  profit  for  American  industries."  2  Moreover, 
Mr.  Taft  waged  his  campaign  largely  on  definite  pledges  for 
tariff  reduction.  Shrewd,  observers  doubted  somewhat  whether 
the  politicians  of  the  party  were  not  too  thoroughly  in  the 
grip  of  the  trusts  to  make  any  real  inroad  upon  the  protected 
interests;  and  the  result  justified  the  skeptical  Democratic 
prophecies  that  any  Republican  revision  would  be  a  revision 
upward.  The  Payne-Aldrich  Tariff  of  1910,  while  making  im- 
provements at  a  few  points,  actually  aggravated  the  evils  which 
the  nation  had  expected  to  have  remedied.     It  was  a  brazen 


1  Glavis'  "  insubordination  "  consisted  in  a  noble  patriotism  which  led  him 
to  show  fealty  to  the  American  people  rather  than  to  a  traitorous  superior  in 
office.  Such  patriotism,  more  needed  than  daring  on  the  battle  field,  cannot 
be  praised  too  highly. 

2  Somewhat  more  definitely,  the  Democratic  platform  declared  for  immediate 
reduction  of  duties  on  necessaries  and  for  placing  on  the  "  i'ree  list"  all 
"  articles  entering  into  competition  with  trust-controlled  products." 


728  PEOPLE  AND   GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

defiance  of  party  pledges  in  the  campaign.  The  House  commit- 
tee, which  framed  the  bill,  was  itself  notorious,  made  up,  al- 
most to  a  man,  of  representatives  of  beneficiaries  of  protection 
—  a  clear  case  of  turning  the  place  of  sheep  dogs  over  to  wolves. 
The  bill  and  the  committee  were  attacked  fiercely  by  a  great 
number  of  the  more  independent  Republican  papers  and  leaders. 
Even  President  Taft*  called  the  woolen  schedule  "indefensi- 
ble " ;  and  showed  so  sensitive  a  feeling  regarding  the  outra- 
geous betrayal  of  party  pledges  that  for  a  time  it  seemed  possible 
he  might  redeem  the  party  honor,  and  his  own,  by  a  veto.  The 
great  body  of  Republican  Congressmen,  however,  it  was  soon 
clear,  would  "stand  pat"  for  the  "System."  A  radical  section 
then  broke  away  in  a  definite  "  Insurgent "  movement.  In  the 
House,  the  "  System  "  Speaker,  "Uncle  Joe"  Cannon,  aided  by 
the  necessary  number  of  "  System  "  Democrats,  easily  forced  the 
bill  through,  with  brief  consideration.  In  the  Senate,  where 
debate  could  not  so  easily  be  muzzled,  insurgent  leaders  like 
LaFollette,  Cummins,  and  Bristow,  exposed  mercilessly  the 
atrocities  of  the  measure,  though  they  could  not  hinder  its  be- 
coming law.  And  then  the  compliant  President,  in  attempts 
to  defend  his  "Standpat"  friends  from  public  criticism,  de- 
clared it  the  best  tariff  ever  enacted. 

458.  Elections  of  1910  and  1912.  —  The  Congressional  election 
of  1910  was  a  revolution.  The  overwhelming  Republican 
majority  was  wiped  out  by  as  large  a  Democratic  majority; 
and  in  various  impregnable  Republican  districts,  Insurgents 
succeeded  Standpatters.  Even  in  the  slowly  changing  Senate, 
Democrats  and  Insurgents  together  mustered  a  clear  majority. 

President  Taft  called  a  special  session  of  the  new  Congress 
promptly  on  the  expiration  of  the  old  one  (April,  1911),  to 
secure  passage  of  his  favorite  measure  of  reciprocity  with 
Canada — which  he  advocated  with  strong  free-trade  arguments. 
The  Insurgents,  largely  from  agricultural  States,  felt  that  this 
sort  of  tariff  reduction  fell  too  exclusively  on  the  farmers, 
where  there  was  least  need  for  reduction.  The  Democrats, 
however,  took  up  the  measure,  as  a  good  beginning,  and  passed 


THE  ELECTION  OF   1912  729 

it,1  along  with  compensation  to  the  farmers  in  a  "  Farmers' 
Free  List  Bill  (to  lessen  the  cost  of  farm  implements  and  ma- 
chinery). This  compensating  measure,  however,  together  with 
various  other  tariff  reductions  carried  by  a  coalition  of  Demo- 
crats and  Insurgents,  was  vetoed  by  the  President,  on  the 
ground  that  Congress  ought  to  wait  for  information  from  a 
Tariff  Board,  which  had  been  created  by  the  Payne  Tariff  Bill 
to  investigate  the  cost  of  production  in  America  and  abroad. 

The  split  in  the  Republican  party  resulted  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  Progressive  Republican  League,  which  hoped  to  secure 
control  of  the  party  machinery  in  the  elections  of  1912.  The 
League,  led  by  the  most  radical  spirits,  was  overwhelmingly 
for  the  nomination  of  LaFollette  for  President ;  but  this  was 
made  definitely  impossible  when  Theodore  Roosevelt,  despite 
previous  specific  declarations,  avowed  himself  in  the  field, 
claiming  to  be  the  only  representative  of  the  Progressive  move- 
ment who  could  hope  for  success.  Mr.  Taft,  through  his  con- 
trol of  the  Southern  State  delegations  and  of  the  machinery  of 
the  Convention,  was  renominated,  after  a  campaign  of  disgrace- 
ful personal  recrimination  between  him  and  his  former  friend. 
Roosevelt,  however,  had  been  the  choice  of  most  Republican 
States,  especially  of  those  with  popular  primaries  (§  461)  ;  and, 
declaring  that  his  opponent  had  "  stolen  "  the  nomination,  he 
called  a  mass  meeting  to  organize  a  new  party. 

Meantime,  the  Democratic  Convention,  in  session  for  nine 
days  at  Baltimore,  made  significant  history.  In  this  party, 
too,  the  preceding  campaign  had  been  a  bitter,  though  disguised, 
contest  between  open  progressives  and  more  or  less  secret  re- 
actionaries. Professing  loud  allegiance  to  progressive  prin- 
ciples, the  old  bosses  were  actually  in  control  of  a  majority  of 
votes  when  the  convention  met.  They  made  plain  their  inten- 
tion to  organize  the  meeting  in  their  interest  by  putting  forward 
for  the  temporary  chairmanship  Judge  Alton  B.  Parker.     Mr. 


1  Canada  finally  rejected  reciprocity,  by  the  election  of  a  new  parliament 
on  that  express  issue. 


730  PEOPLE  AND   GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

Bryan  had  steadily  declined  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency again,  and  he  now  stepped  forward  as  a  courageous 
and  skillful  champion  of  the  progressive  element,  waging  a 
contest  that  finally  wrested  control  from  the  bosses  and 
turned  over  the  machinery  of  his  party  to  the  real  democracy. 
No  other  convention  ever  witnessed  so  many  dramatic  episodes. 

Bryan  first  appealed  to  all  the  leading  candidates  for  the 
presidential  nomination,  urging  them  to  oppose  the  bosses' 
choice  for  chairman, — a  man  "conspicuously  identified,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  public,  with  the  reactionary  element."  Of  the 
various  candidates,  Woodrow  Wilson  alone  stood  this  "acid 
test."  Others  evaded,  or  pleaded  for  harmony,  to  avoid  offending 
possible  supporters.  Wilson  frankly  and  cordially  approved 
Bryan's  purpose.  Thus  the  issue  was  drawn,  and  Wilson  was 
marked,  even  more  clearly  than  before,  as  the  true  candidate 
of  the  progressives.  The  bosses  seated  their  man  for  chairman, 
but  it  was  a  Pyrrhic  victory.  The  Democratic  masses  through- 
out the  country  shouted  approval  of  Bryan  and  Wilson. 

Next  Mr.  Bryan  startled  the  Convention  and  the  country 
by  a  daring  resolution  —  declaring  the  convention  opposed 
to  the  nomination  of  any  candidate  "who  is  the  representa- 
tive of  or  under  obligations  to  J.  Pierpont  Morgan,  Thomas 
P.  Ryan,  August  Belmont,  or  any  other  member  of  the  privi- 
lege-hunting and  favor-seeking  class."  Two  of  the  gentle- 
men named  sat  in  the  Convention.  In  the  debate  Mr.  Bryan 
said:  "Extraordinary  conditions  need  extraordinary  remedies. 
.  .  .  There  is  not  a  delegate  who  does  not  know  that  an 
effort  is  being  made  right  now  to  sell  the  Democratic  party 
into  bondage  to  the  predatory  interests  of  the  country.  It 
is  the  most  brazen,  the  most  insolent,  the  most  impudent 
attempt  that  has  been  made  in  the  history  of  American  politics 
to  dominate  a  convention,  stifle  the  honest  sentiment  of  a 
people,  and  make  the  nominee  the  bond  slave  of  the  men  who 
exploit  this  country.  .  .  .  No  sense  of  politeness  to  such  men 
will  keep  me  from  protecting  my  party  from  the  disgrace  they 
inflict  upon  it."     Pew  delegates  dared  vote  against  the  resolu- 


AWAKENING  OF  THE   STATES  731 

tion.  Then  as  the  balloting  proceeded  slowly  day  after  day, 
Wilson  gained  steadily,  mainly  because  of  thousands  of  tele- 
grams from  "the  people  at  home,"  threatening,  urging,  im- 
ploring their  representatives  to  support  Bryan's  leadership  and 
Wilson's  candidacy.  On  the  forty-sixth  ballot  Woodrow  Wilson 
was  nominated.  The  progressive  element,  which  had  failed  in 
the  Republican  Convention,  had  conquered  in  the  Democratic. 

Soon  another  progressive  ticket  was  in  the  field.  Roosevelt 
and  his  friends  proceeded  with  their  new  organization,  which 
took  the  name,  the  Progressive  party,  and  nominated  Roosevelt 
upon  a  long  and  radical  platform.  Many  ardent  reformers 
rallied  to  this  long-desired  opportunity  for  a  new  alignment  in 
politics  (cf.  §  228)  ;  but  a  larger  number  of  their  old  associates, 
including  most  of  the  LaFollette  Republicans,  felt  that  the 
movement  was  too  much  dominated  by  one  man's  ambition, 
and  that  it  was  ill-timed  at  best  when  the  Baltimore  nomination 
had  offered  so  admirable  an  opportunity  to  progressives.  Wil- 
son was  elected  by  the  largest  electoral  plurality  in  our  history, 
the  vote  standing,  —  Wilson,  435 ;  Roosevelt,  88 ;  Taft,  8. 
Wilson's  popular  vote  exceeded  that  of  Roosevelt  by  over  two 
million ;  and  Roosevelt's  was  nearly  700,000  more  than  Taft's. 

B.     In  State  and  City 

459.  Democratic  Political  Machinery  and  the  State.  —  In  the 
Jacksonian  period,  three  generations  ago,  American  democracy 
triumphed  in  theory  over  all  enemies.  But  for  all  this  time 
the  real  political  practice  has  fallen  far  short  of  true  democ- 
racy. The  new  machinery  which  was  devised  for  ^cksonian 
democracy  suited  its  needs  very  imperfectly  (§  323  ff.jv  It  made 
the  people's  rule  too  indirect.  Much  better  it  suited  the  secret 
rule  of  Privilege,  through  corruption  of  representative  bodies 
and  skillful  manipulation  by  its  agents,  the  bosses. 

For  many  years  a  conviction  has  been  spreading  that  the 
first  need  is  more  democracy,  and  more  direct  democracy,  with 
less  power  in  political  "  middlemen."  Accordingly,  the  most 
pressing  public  questions  immediately  at  issue  (1912)  concern 


732  PEOPLE   AND  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

changes  in  political  machinery,  —  direct  nominations,  by  pri- 
mary elections  instead  of  by  bargaining  conventions ;  more  direct 
control  of  officials  after  election,  by  the  recall ;  provision  against 
corruption  in  elections  (by  secret  ballot,  improved  systems  of 
registration  of  voters,  publicity  of  campaign  contributions  and 
of  campaign  expenses,  with  legal  limitations  upon  amounts  to 
be  spent  by  candidates)  ;  direct  legislation,  by  the  initiative  and 
the  referendum ;  direct  "  home  rule "  for  cities,  instead  of  in- 
direct rule  at  the  State  capital ;  and  direct  election  of  United 
States  Senators.1 

Except  the  last  (and,  in  part,  the  matter  of  campaign  ex- 
penses), all  these  matters  are  the  concern  of  State  legislation,  and 
the  last  may  be  made  so.  This  is  fortunate.  The  advantages 
of  Federal  government  were  never  better  illustrated.  One 
State  moves  faster  for  direct  legislation ;  another  State,  for 
provision  against  corrupt  elections ;  while  those  States  which 
do  not  yet  move  in  any  matter,  and  which  might  have  drag 
enough  to  prevent  any  movement  in  a  consolidated  nation,  must 
at  least  look  on  with  interest  while  their  more  far-sighted  or 
more  reckless  neighbors  act  as  political  experiment  stations. 
Each  of  these  experiments  which  proves  profitable  to  democracy 
will  in  time  force  its  way  into  all  the  commonwealths. 

For  many  years  after  the  Civil  War,  the  State  seemed  in 
danger  of  sinking  into  a  disused  organ  —  a  sort  of  vermiform 
appendix  in  the  body  politic.  But  since  1890  the  State  has 
reawakened,  —  and,  with  it,  new  hope  for  democracy.  The  en- 
largement of  State  activity  in  the  u  good  roads  "  movement,  in 
conservation  of  natural  resources,  and  yet  more  in  the  conser- 
vation or  human  welfare  (§  470),  is  notable ;  but  here  we  are 
concerned  more  with  its  progress  in  reforming  political  ma- 
chinery. In  1900,  after  years  of  splendid  conflict  under  the 
leadership  of  Robert  LaFollette,  Wisconsin  began  to  shake  off 
the  rule  of  bosses  and  machine  politics,  to  control  railroads, 
and  to  build  a  truly  democratic  commonwealth,  with  her  great 

1  Settled  while  these  pages  were  at  press.    Cf .  §  468,  note. 


AWAKENING  OF  THE  STATES  733 

University  for  her  training  school  in  politics  and  in  nobler 
living.  Then,  led  by  William  Uren,  Oregon  adopted  demo- 
cratic machinery  that  outran  anything  before  known  in  Amer- 
ica. Oklahoma  began  its  statehood  with  most  of  the  democratic 
devices  known  at  the  time,  and  with  some  novel  experiments, 
in  its  first  constitution.  And  the  elections  of  1910  and  1911 
witnessed  brilliant  democratic  progress  all  the  way  from  the 
redemption  of  corporation-ridden  New  Jersey  (by  Woodrow 
Wilson)  to  the  redemption  of  Southern-Pacific-ridden  California 
(by  Hiram  W.  Johnson).  Nearly  all  the  reforms  indicated  above 
are  in  successful  operation  in  Wisconsin,  Oregon,  Oklahoma, 
Ohio,  Arizona,  and  California,  with  woman  suffrage  in  three  of 
these  States.  Many  other  States  have  several  of  these  provisions ; 
and  active  campaigns  are  on  for  radical  reforms  in  many  more. 
A  true  democratic  machinery  is  to  be  the  contribution  of  the 
early  twentieth  century  to  the  history  of  American  democracy. 
460.  The  Australian  Ballot l  was  the  first  of  these  reforms  to 
win  general  acceptance.  Under  earlier  practice',  the  parties 
and  candidates  printed  tickets  in  any  form  they  liked,  often 
with  deceptive  labels  or  with  fraudulent  changes  of  one  or 
more  names.  Thoughtful  voters,  who  wished  to  vote  inde- 
pendently of  party  labels^  found  it  difficult  to  do  so;  and  a 
purchased  voter  received  his  ballot  from  the  bribe-giver,  who 
watched  him  deposit  it.  Now  in  all  but  two  States,  there 
is  an  official  ballot  printed  by  the  State.  No  other  can  be  used. 
The  names  of  all  candidates  appear  on  this  ballot ;  and  spaces 
are  left  for  the  voter  to  write  in  others  if  he  so  wishes.  The 
ballot  is  given  out  only  by  the  judge  of  election  at  the  polling 
place  and  at  the  time  of  voting ;  and  the  process  of  voting  is 
in  general  as  follows :  (1)  The  voter  gives  his  name  to  the 
judges  of  election,  and  they  verify  it  from  the  "  registration  " 
lists 2  as  the  name  of  a  legal  voter  in  that  precinct.     (2)  The 

1  The  system  is  essentially  the  English  ballot  system  of  1870,  which  had  been 
improved  in  some  measure  in  some  of  the  Australian  States. 

2  Most  States  now  require  that  every  voter  shall  "  register  "  some  time  be- 
fore election,  aud  no  one  can  vote  on  election  day  whose  name  does  not  appear 


734  PEOPLE  AND   GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

voter  then  receives  from  the  judge  one  ballot  (and  if  he  mis- 
marks  this,  so  as  to  require  another,  the  first  one  must  be  de- 
livered to  the  judges  and  destroyed).  (3)  He  takes  this  ballot 
into  a  screened  booth,  where  he  finds  a  shelf  and  a  pencil,  and 
marks  his  choice  for  each  office.  (4)  He  .then  folds  the  ballot, 
and  it  is  deposited  in  the  ballot  box  by  an  election  official 
under  his  eyes. 

This  process  discourages  buying  votes,  since  the  buyer  now  finds  it  hard 
to  make  sure  that  the  voter  "  delivers  the  goods."  1  It  also  secures  absolute 
secrecy  and  complete  protection  against  fraud  by  the  voter  or  upon  him. 
Fraud  by  election  officials  is  still  possible,  of  course.  The  law  always 
requires  that  the  election  officials  must  come  from  different  parties ;  but 
they  are  often  careless  and  ignorant,  and  sometimes  corrupt.  As  a  further 
protection  against  intimidation  of  voters,  most  States  forbid  electioneer- 
ing, even  by  handbills  or  cards,  within  a  specified  distance  of  the  polls. 

Henry  George  and  a  Workingman's  party  (§453),  began  the  American 
agitation  for  the  Australian  ballot  in  1886  in  New  York.  In  1887  a  bill 
for  the  reform  was  defeated  in  the  legislature  ;  and  three  years  later,  when 
public  opinion  compelled  the  old  parties  to  grant  the  reform,  they  managed 
for  a  while  to  deceive  the  people  with  a  sham.  The  New  York  ballot  of 
1890  did  secure  secrecy ;  but  it  encouraged  straight  party  voting  by  ar- 


on  the  registration  list.  This  device  prevents  "  repeating  "  and  the  importing 
of  voters  from  other  precincts.  The  registration  lists  are  published  before 
election,  so  that  errors  or  frauds  may  be  detected.  Some  States  limit  the  law 
to  large  places,  since  in  rural  precincts  every  voter  is  pretty  sure  to  be  known 
personally  to  the  election  judges ;  and  some  permit  a  city  voter  who  has  not 
registered  to  "swear  in"  his  vote  anyway,  —  but  this  exception  is  less  and 
less  permitted,  because  it  has  been  found  to  open  the  door  to  fraud. 

1  This  difficulty  is  evaded  ingeniously  sometimes  in  the  following  manner: 
A  political  worker  secures  a  ballot  by  going  to  the  polls  and  leaving  without 
depositing  his  ballot  (carrying  it  with  him,  in  defiance  of  law).  This  ballot  is 
then  marked  as  the  vote-buyer  desires  and  given  to  a  bribed  voter,  who  is 
accompanied  to  the  polls  by  a  worker,  and  who  deposits  the  marked  ballot 
after  pretending  to  mark  his  own  in  the  secret  booth.  He  receives  his  money 
only  when  he  delivers  to  another  worker  of  the  party  the  unmarked  ballot 
which  he  received  at  the  polls  —  as  evidence  that  he  deposited  the  marked 
one.  Then  this  new  ballot  is  used  again  with  a  new  voter  in  a  like  manner. 
Thus  by  sacrificing  one  vote,  a  steady  string  of  purchased  votes  may  be 
"delivered  "  with  absolute  certainty  as  long  as  the  polls  are  open;  and  the 
process  may  be  duplicated  at  every  precinct,  and  for  several  voters  at  each 
precinct,  even  before  the  most  scrupulous  judges. 


AWAKENING  OF  THE   STATES  735 

ranging  that  one  mark  at  the  head  of  a  ticket  should  stand  for  all  the 
candidates  of  the  party  selected.  Five  years  later,  however,  New  York 
secured  the  true  "blanket"  ballot.  One  of  the  chief  advantages  of  the 
Australian  ballot  is  that  it  requires  the  voter  to  designate  his  choice  for 
each  office,  and  so  encourages  independent  voting.  The  New  York  plan 
of  1890  has  been  a  favorite  trick  of  politicians  elsewhere. 

Some  States  provide  voting  machines.  Such  a  machine  combines  all 
the  advantages  of  the  Australian  ballot  with  certain  others.  The  count 
is  automatic,  —  obviating  errors  and  corruption  by  clerks  ;  and  the  fact 
that  the  count  is  complete  (except  for  copying  the  results)  when  the  last 
vote  is  cast,  saves  much  time  and  expense.  The  machine  has  the  full 
ballot  upon  it,  with  a  key  opposite  each  name  or  each  question,  and  the 

ndidate  votes  his  choice  by  pressing  certain  keys. 

461.  Directs  Nominations.  —  It  is  important  to  secure  a  true 
expression  of  the  people's  choice  between  the  nominees  of  the 
opposing  parties.  This  was  the  aim  of  ballot  reform.  But  it 
is  quite  as  important  that  the  people  shall  express  their  will 
in  selecting  the  candidates  between  whom  the  final  choice  must  be 
made.     This  is  the  aim  of  a  movement  for  "direct  primaries." 

The  older  system  of  nominations  —  by  precinct  caucuses  and 
district  conventions  —  has  been  described.  Under  this  system, 
rarely  did  a  tenth  of  the  voters  take  any  part  in  nominations. 
The  matter  was  left  to  the  political  "  machines  "  ;  or,  if  a  popu- 
lar contest  did  take  place,  the  result  was  often  determined 
by  fraud  or  trickery,  if  not  by  absolute  violence.  Toward 
1890,  the  State  began  to  step  in  to  check  these  evils,  by  bring- 
ing the  party  nominations,  like  the  elections  themselves,  under 
the  supervision  of  law.  In  so tne  States  still  (1913),  the  law 
regulates  only  the  old  method  of  choosing  nominating  conven- 
tions, —  by  securing  a  secret  ballot  at  the  preliminary  "  cau- 
cuses "  ;  but  many  States  have  substituted  a  wholly  new  and 
more  democratic  system  known  as  direct  primaries. 

This  method  was  tried  in  South  Carolina  in  1888,  and  soon 
after  in  some  other  Southern  States,  where  practically  there 
was  only  one  political  party.1     It  is  more  complex  where  the 

1  The  method  was  not  unlike  that  of  Massachusetts  in  early  days  (§  78). 


736  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

party  system  prevails ;  but  it  was  soon  adopted  for  county 
officers  in  some  eastern  and  middle  States  ;  and,  in  1901,  after 
trial  in  the  largest  county  of  the  State,  Minnesota  adopted  a 
"  State-wide  primary."  € 

The  Minnesota  law  already  required  three  registration  days,  previous 
to  an  election,  on  which  days  the  judges  and  clerks  were  present  at  the 
polling  places  to  record  the  names  and  addresses  of  voters.  Now  the 
law  provides  that  the  first  of  these  three  days  shall  be  also  a  "  primary 
election  "  day,  with  the  same  officials  to  act.  All  candidates  for  nomi- 
nation to  any  office  are  required  to  "file "their  candidacy  with  the 
county  clerk  in  advance  of  the  primary.  The  county  officials  then  see 
to  the  printing  of  official  ballots  for  each  party.  The  Republican 
ticket  contains  the  names  of  all  properly  filed  Republican  candidates ; 
and  so  with  every  party  which  has  a  ticket  at  all.  At  registration,  each 
voter  may  call  for  the  ticket  of  the  party  with  which  he  wishes  to  act, 
and  vote  his  choice  among  its  candidates  for  nomination,  under  all  the 
safeguards  of  the  Australian  ballot.  If  he  chooses  not  to  announce  his 
party,  he  loses  his  voice  as  to  nominations. 

The  system  in  Minnesota  applied  to  all  local  offices  and  even  to  con- 
gressmen, but  not  to  the  governor  or  other  executive  State  officers,  nor 
to  members  of  the  State  nominating  conventions.  Its  two  weak  points 
are :  (1)  to  vote  at  all  in  the  primary,  the  voter  is  obliged  to  declare  his 
party  affiliation  publicly  ;  (2)  if  voters  hold  this  obligation  lightly,  the 
members  of  one  party  may,  and  sometimes  do,  control  the  nominations  of 
the  other  party.1  Most  attempts  to  decrease  one  of  these  evils  increase 
the  other.  None  the  less  the  advantages  of  the  system  are  enormous. 
Results  show  that  the  great  part  of  the  voters  now  take  active  part  in  the 
nominating  primaries  ;  and  the  bargaining  between  candidates  in  conven- 
tion is  eliminated.  Iowa,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Wisconsin,  Oregon,  Massa- 
chusetts, New  Jersey,  Louisiana,  California,  Ohio,  and  other  States  have 
adopted  a  similar  system,  and  in  some  cases  have  extended  it  to  all  offices 
and  even  to  an  expression  of  choice  (not  legally  binding)  for  United  States 
Senator  and  to  the  election  of  State  delegates  to  the  National  Conventions 
of  the  political  parties. 

462.  Corrupt  Practices  acts  in  many  States  have  checked  the  corrupt 
use  of  money  in  elections.     Such  laws  limit  the  amount  of  expenditure 

1  In  particular,  members  of  a  hopelessly  minority  party  in  a  given  district 
are  likely  to  vote  at  the  primary  the  ticket  of  the  opposing  party. 


AWAKENING  OF  THE  STATES  737 

for  each  office,  forbid  wholly  many  sorts  of  expenditure  under  which 
indirect  bribery  has  been  customary,1  and  require  a  sworn  statement  of 
all  expenditure  from  each  candidate.  Most  of  these  laws  fall  short,  as 
yet,  in  two  respects,  (i)  They  do  not  demand  that  the  statement  of 
expenses  be  sufficiently  itemized,  and  accordingly  much  corruption  is 
cloaked  under  lump  sums  named  for  innocent  purposes ;  and  (2)  they 
do  not  deprive  a  successful  candidate  of  his  office  for  a  breach  of  the  law 
by  his  agent  —  as  the  effective  English  law  does. 

A  recent  notable  reinforcement  to  these  laws  is  being  made  in  various 
States  (and  also  in  Federal  elections)  by  requiring  publicity,  before  elec- 
tion, of  the  source  of  all  campaign  funds,  and  attempts  are  being  made  to 
forbid  contributions  by  corporations  and  to  limit  amounts  from  individual 
givers. 

463.  The  Recall.  —  When  the  people  have  made  a  law,  and 
have  chosen  servants  to  enforce  it,  what  if  those  servants  prove 
recreant  and  prefer  to  serve  trusts  or  bosses  ?  Democracy  de- 
mands that  the  people  shall  not  only  select  servants  to  carry 
out  their  will,  but  also  that  they  shall  be  able  to  dismiss  those 
who  fail  to  do  so.  The  "  recall "  means  a  provision  by  which 
a  certain  percentage  of  voters,  on  petition,  can  force  any  official 
to  stand  again  at  any  time  in  opposition  to  some  new  candidate. 

The  advantage  of  the  arrangement  over  waiting  for  a  new  election  in 
one  or  two  years  —  or  several  years,  in  case  of  judicial  officers — is  that  it 
concentrates  attention  upon  the  one  official.  At  a  regular  election,  the 
matter  is  complicated  by  party  issues  and  by  the  distractions  due  to  choos- 
ing many  other  officials.  Opponents  of  the  recall  fear  that  the  people  will 
use  a  power  of  recall  hastily,  especially  in  pique  toward  judicial  officers, 
without  due  understanding  of  the  technical  points  involved  in  judicial 
decisions  that  have  offended.  The  reply,  of  course,  is  that  if  the  people 
are  fit  to  choose  untried  men  to  decide  such  technical  points,  they  must 
be  fit  to  choose  whether  they  will  keep  such  men  after  trial. 

Presumably,  when  the  people  possess  this  power,  it  will  not  have  to  be 
invoked  often.  So  far,  it  has  not  been  abused  (1913).  Some  conserva- 
tive papers  made  much  recently  of  an  unwise  attempt  to  invoke  the  recall 
against  a  judge  in  Oregon  for  apparent  bias  in  a  trial ;  but  they  have 
failed  to  tell  their  readers  that  it  proved  impossible  —  strong  though  the 

1  As  in  hiring  men  to  distribute  cards  at  the  polls  —  at  extravagant  rates ; 
or  in  hiring  conveyances  to  carry  voters  to  and  from  the  polls. 


738  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

provocation  was  —  to  secure  even  half  the  signatures  necessary  to  compel 
a  new  election. 

For  some  years,  Oregon  was  the  o"hly  State  to  have  the  recall  in  its 
constitution  —  though  several  individual  cities  had  such  provisions  in 
their  "Home  Rule"  charters.  By  1908,  agitation  for  extension  of  the 
measure  was  noticeable.  President  Taft's  veto  of  the  Arizona  Statehood 
Bill  (§  405)  drew  particular  attention  to  it.  In  the  following  fall  elec- 
tions (191 1),  Washington  adopted  a  constitutional  amendment  establish- 
ing the  recall  for  all  offices  except  the  judiciary.  California,  which,  under 
the  splendid  leadership  of  its  Governor,  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  had  just 
thrown  off  the  yoke  of  the  Southern  Pacific  in  politics,  voted  on  several 
constitutional  amendments  at  the  same  election,  including  the  referendum 
and  initiative.  The  recall,  including  application  to  judges,  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  poll,  carrying  by  more  than  3  to  1.  And  in  191 2  Arizona 
restored  this  machinery  to  its  constitution  (§  405). 

464.  Direct  Legislation.  —  More  significant  than  mere  choice 
of  officials  is  real  control  by  the  people  over  the  laws  which 
officials  are  to  carry  out.  As  a  rule,  even  in  "democracies," 
the  people  govern  themselves  only  indirectly.  They  choose 
representatives ;  and  these  delegated  individuals  make  the 
laws,  —  sometimes  with  little  response  to  popular  desires. 
Radical  democrats  demand  that  the  people  take  a  more  direct 
and  effective  part  in  lawmaking  by  the  referendum  and  the 
initiative. 

The  referendum  is  the  older  device.  It  consists  merely  in 
referring  to  a  popular  vote  for  final  confirmation  a  law  which 
has  already  passed  the  legislature  or  the  State  convention. 
The  practice  originated  in  Massachusetts,  in  the  ratification  of 
the  State  constitution,  in  1778  and  1780  (§  152).  Since  1820 
it  has  been  used  almost  always  in  our  States  for  the  ratifica- 
tion of  new  constitutions  or  constitutional  amendments;  and 
there  has  been  a  growing  tendency  to  submit  to  popular  vote 
also,  in  State  or  city,  questions  of  liquor  licensing,  bond  issues, 
and  public  ownership.  For  more  than  a  half  century,  Switzer- 
land, both  for  the  federal  and  the  cantonal  governments,1  has 

1  Modem  History,  §  519. 


DIRECT  LEGISLATION  739 

carried  the  practice  much  further.  There  a  certain  number  of 
voters  by  petition  may  compel  the  legislature  to  submit  any 
law  to  popular  decision. 

Switzerland  also  developed  the  true  complement  to  the  ref- 
erendum ;  namely,  the  initiative.  By  1870,  in  nearly  all  the 
cantons,  a  small  number  of  voters  could  fra?ne  any  law  they 
desired,  which  the  legislature  then  was  compelled  to  submit 
to  a  popular  vote ; l  and  in  1891  this  principle  was  adopted 
for  the  Swiss  federal  government. 

The  profitable  working  of  these  devices  in  Switzerland  has 
led  to  a  new  enthusiasm  for  them  in  America ;  and  to-day  they 
are  among  the  most  prominent  matters  on  progressive  plat- 
forms. Up  to  the  present  writing,  the  most  notable  legislation 
of  this  kind  is  found  in  Oregon,  whose  plan,  however,  has  just 
been  adopted  in  full  in  several  other  States. 

Mr.  William  Uren,  a  leader  of  the  Oregon  progressives,  in  an  address 
before  the  City  Club  of  Chicago  in  1909,  described  these  devices  in 
Oregon  as  follows  :  — 

"  By  the  initiative  .  .  .  eight  per  cent  of  the  voters  of  Oregon  are 
authorized  to  file  with  the  secretary  of  state,  not  less  than  four  months 
before  a  general  election,  their  petition  demanding  the  reference  to  the 
people  of  any  measure.  .  .  .  The  full  text  of  the  measure  must  be  in- 
cluded in  the  petition,  and  one  petition  will  take  only  one  measure.  It 
does  not  go  to  the  legislature  at  all.2 

"  The  referendum  provides  that  five  per  cent  of  the  voters,  at  any  time 
within  ninety  days  after  the  close  of  a  session  of  the  legislature,  may  file 
their  petition  demanding  the  submission  of  any  measure  passed  by  that 
legislature.  The  law  is  thereby  held  up  until  the  next  election.  It  does 
not  take  effect  until  it  has  been  voted  on  and  affirmed  by  the  people ; 

1  This  device  also  originated  in  America  in  Revolutionary  days,  in  the  pro- 
vision for  amending  the  constitution  of  Georgia  (§  155),  but  it  took  no  real 
root  at  that  time. 

2  Mr.  Uren  adds  this  comment:  "We  think  now  that  it  might  be  very 
materially  improved  if  it  was  sent  to  the  legislature  in  the  first  instance  and 
the  legislature  had  opportunity  to  submit  a  competing  measure  if  the  members 
were  not  satisfied  to  pass  the  one  proposed.  The  more  recent  amendments 
that  have  been  offered  in  other  States  usually  include  that  provision.  But  we 
did  not  know  that  much  about  it  when  our  amendment  was  drawn." 


740  PEOPLE  AND  GOVERNMENT   TO-DAY 

and  the  vote  required  is  a  majority  of  those  who  vote  on  the  question 
—  not  a  majority  of  those  who  go  to  the  polls."  [In  1908  eleven  meas- 
ures were  offered  by  the  initiative.] 

"In  1908  we  had  the  advantage  of  the  experience  of  the  previous  elec- 
tions in  the  matter  of  getting  measures  before  the  people.  Our  statute 
law  for  the  operation  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  was  amended  in 
1907.  providing  that  the  secretary  of  state  should  order  to  be  printed  and 
distributed  by  mail  to  every  registered  voter,  about  three  months  before  the 
election,  a  copy  of  all  the  measures  that  were  submitted,  and  all  the  argu- 
ments that  were  offered  for  and  against  them,  principally  at  the  expense  of 
the  State.  Those  offering  arguments  are  required  to  pay  the  actual  cost 
of  the  paper,  printing,  and  press  work  used  for  their  arguments,  but  not  for 
the  measure,  so  that  it  costs  us  about  seventy-five  dollars  a  printed  page 
for  argument.  It  made  a  book  of  a  hundred  and  twenty  pages  with  all 
we  had  last  year,  and  the  people  read  it." 

Thus,  at  the  expense  of  the  State  and  of  interested  political 
organizations,  Oregon  provides  her  people  with  the  best  politi- 
cal education  yet  offered  any  great  people.  California  (1911) 
has  adopted  this  feature  of  the  Oregon  plan. 

465.  Home  Rule  for  Cities.  —  The  State  constitution  always 
makes  the  State  government  supreme  over  the  local  units, — 
towns,  cities,  school  districts.  Whatever  authority  may  be 
possessed  by  these  units  is  delegated  by  the  central  State  gov- 
ernment, either  by  "  general  laws,"  applying  to  all  units  of  one 
class,  or  by  "  special  acts "  applying  to  single  units.  ,  Such 
delegated  power  may  at  any  time  be  resumed  or  modified  by 
the  State;  and  that  supreme  authority  too  often  manages 
directly  many  matters  which  really  concern  the  local  units. 
This  practice  is  especially  vicious  when  exercised  in  "  special 
acts." 

One  aim  of  the  new  democratic  movement  is  to  give  the  people 
of  the  cities  more  control  in  governing  themselves.  From  the 
Civil  War  to  about  1900,  American  city  government  was  the 
jest  of  the  world,  and  a  blot  on  democracy.  Early  spasmodic 
attempts  at  bettering  conditions  were  rather  in  the  direction  of 
less  democracy.  Limitations  were  placed  by  legislatures  on 
the  taxing  power  of  cities,  to  guard  paternally  against  its  mis- 


HOME   RULE  FOR  CITIES  741 

use ;  and  vast  authority  was  concentrated  in  the  mayor,1  with 
the  idea  that  the  people  could  hold  him  responsible  more  easily 
than  it  could  the  numerous  council. 

By  inane  imitation  of  national  and  State  government,  most  large  cities 
had  adopted  the  so-called  "  Federal  form  "  of  government,  — a  one-man 
executive,  with  large  powers,  corresponding  to  those  of  the  President  in 
the  Federal  government,  and  a  legislative  council.  The  first  decided 
move  for  reform  (about  1890)  consisted  in  giving  the  mayor  extraordi- 
nary powers,  especially  through  the  appointment  of  various  new  "  boards  " 
to  whom  large  parts  of  the  former  power  of  the  council  were  turned 
over.  For  a  few  trials,  this  "new  broom"  swept  clean,  chiefly  because 
it  was  tried  only  where  there  was  a  determined  effort  at  improvement, 
such  as  would  have  brought  good  results  under  any  system ;  but  soon 
events  proved  that  it  was  quite  as  effective  in  the  hands  of  professional 
politicians  and  bosses. 

The  present  tendency  (since  about  1900)  is  to  seek  help  in  more 
democracy  —  to  give  each  city  very  complete  control  over  its 
own  affairs.  Formerly  the  State  legislature  framed  charters, 
by  special  legislation,  and  amended  them  from  time  to  time, 
with  little  or  do  participation  by  the  citizens  concerned.  Now, 
in  many  States,  the  legislature  has  passed  a  general  law  for 
"  Home  Rule  "  charters.  In  such  States,  any  city  may  have 
a  "  charter  commission  "  of  its  own  citizens  to  prepare  a  charter 
(and  afterward  to  suggest  amendments  from  time  to  time), 
which  then  must  be  submitted  to  a  popular  vote  for  ratification. 
This  marks  an  awakening  of  the  cities  no  less  notable  than  the 
awakening  of  the  States  (§  459),  so  that  it  has  become  possible  to 
say  "  TJie  City  the  Hope  of  Democracy." 2 

466.  Commission  Government.  —  Some  two  hundred  of  the  "  Home 
Rule  "  cities  distributed  in  thirty-two  States  have  adopted  a  new  type 
of  government,  known  as  the  "  commission  form  of  government"  (1912). 
A  small  body  of  men,  usually  not  more  than  seven,  elected,  commonly,  at 
large,  comprise,  with  their  appointees,  the  whole  city  government  and 
hold  large  discretionary  power.  So  far  as  this  plan  does  away  with 
possibilities  for  complexities  and  deadlocks,  it  has  much  to  recommend 

1  Cf .  §  303.  2  The  title  of  the  valuable  book  by  Frederick  C.  Howe. 


742  PROGRESSIVE   DEMOCRACY 

it  —  //  the  discretion  of  the  magistrates  is  limited — as  it  usually  is  in  such 
charters  —  by  provision  for  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.  But  possi- 
bly the  main  advantage  of  the  commission  form  over  the  "  federal "  or 
the  large-council  form,  lies  in  these  accessories  —  which,  of  course,  may  be 
woven  into  any  other  form  as  well.  The  new  charters  usually  limit  the 
term  of  any  public  service  corporation  grant  to  fifteen  or  twenty  years,1 
with  provision  for  public  purchase  at  fixed  periods  ;  and  they  commonly 
contain  provision  for  civil  service  rules. 

467.  Preferential  Voting.  — One  radical  innovation  in  several  recent, 
"  Home  Rule  "  charters  is  a  provision  for  preferential  voting.  The  voter 
is  given  a  chance,  not  merely  to  vote  one  choice  among  the  various  candi- 
dates for  an  office,  but  to  vote  his  preferences  in  order.  The  sample 
ballot  on  the  opposite  page  will  teach  the  conveniences  of  the  method. 

This  method  of  voting  does  away  with  separate  primaries  for  nomina- 
tions. Candidates  for  nomination  and  election  have  their  names  all  on 
one  ticket,  without  party  designation.  If  any  candidate  has  a  majority 
of  all  ballots  in  the  first  column,  he  is  elected.  If  no  one  has  such  a 
majority,  the  first  and  second  choices  for  each  candidate  are  added,  and 
if  any  one  then  has  a  majority,  he  is  elected.  If  still  there  is  no  majority, 
the  votes  in  the  third  column  for  each  candidate  are  added  to  his  previous 
votes,  and  the  candidate  having  a  plurality  is  elected.  In  this  way  the 
majority  may  not  get,  any  more  than  now,  just  the  man  they  most  want ; 
but  they  are  sure,  as  they  are  not  now  at  all,  to  get  a  man  of  the  general 
kind  they  want,  and  not  to  get  any  man  ichom  they  positively  do  not  ivant. 
Politicians  can  no  longer  trick  the  people  and  divide  "  good  government " 
forces  by  the  ancient  scheme  of  setting  up  several  candidates  for  them, 
while  the  forces  of  Privilege  combine  upon  one  candidate  and  elect  him 
by  a  minority  vote. 

468.  Direct  Election  of  Senators  and  Direct  Nomination  of 
President.  —  For  many  years  there  has  been  unmistakable  de- 
mand by  a  great  majority  of  the  people  for  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  to  provide  for  direct  (popular)  election  of 
Senators.  Time  after  time  the  necessary  resolution  has  passed 
the  Representatives,  only  to  be  smothered  or  voted  down  in 
the  upper  House,  which  had  no  desire  to  be  brought  closer  to 
the  people.  In  1911  success  seemed  certain.  Notorious  pur- 
chase of   a  Senatorship  from  Illinois  by  Big    Business  for  a 

iCf.  §208. 


IN  STATE  AND  NATION 


743 


BALLOT   ILLUSTRATING   PREFERENTIAL  VOTING1 

INSTRUCTIONS.  — To  vote  for  a  candidate  make  a  cross  (X)  in  the 
appropriate  space. 

Vote  your  FIRST  choice  in  the  FIRST  column. 

Vote  your  SECOND  choice  in  the  SECOND  column. 

Vote  ONLY  ONE  FIRST  choice  and  ONLY  ONE  SECOND  choice  for 
any  one  office. 

Vote  in  the  THIRD  column  for  ALL  THE  OTHER  CANDIDATES 
whom  you  wish  to  support. 2 

DO  NOT  VOTE  MORE  THAN  ONE  CHOICE  FOR  ONE  PERSON, 
as  only  one  choice  will  count  for  any  candidate. 

If  you  wrongly  mark,  tear,  or  deface  this  ballot,  return  it  and  obtain 
another. 

ONE   MAN  TO   BE   ELECTED   FOR  EACH   OFFICE 


Supervisor 

of  Administration 

(Mayor) 

First 
Choice 

Second 
Choice 

Other 
Choices 

Charles  E.  Hughes 

Champ  Clark 

> 

George  B.  McClellan 

Nelson  W.  Aldrich 

Richard  Croker 

Tom  L.  Johnson 

Joseph  W.  Folk 

Robert  M.  La  Follette 

jr 

Woodrow  Wilson 

y 

William  J.  Bryan 

Chauncey  M.  Depew 

v 

William  H.  Taft 

Theodore  Roosevelt 

Supervisor  of 
Public  Property 

Gifford  Pinchot 

Richard  A.  Ballinger 

1  This  ballot  (with  one  change  of  name  here)  was  used  at  public  meetings 
in  the  city  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  in  1911,  to  illustrate  this  method  of 
voting  which  was  proposed  in  a  new  Home  Rule  charter  then  before  the  citi- 
zens for  adoption. 

2  A  little  practice  will  show  that  this  provision  enables  a  voter  to  vote 
against  every  one  to  whom  he  is  positively  opposed.  Let  the  class  or  school 
try  such  an  election  to  realize  better  the  workings,  first  informing  themselves 
upon  each  of  the  men  named. 


744  PROGRESSIVE   DEMOCRACY 

certain  Mr.  Lorimer  had  aroused  the  country.  True,  a  Senate 
committee  of  a  Standpatters "  made  the  usual  whitewashing 
report ;  but  it  was  riddled  pitifully  by  the  Insurgents  and  by 
the  progressive  press.  Still  on  the  vote  to  expel,  the  Stand- 
patters managed  to  rally  the  one  third  vote  necessary  to  save 
their  colleague.  A  resolution  for  an  amendment  to  provide 
for  popular  election  of  Senators  was  then  pending,  and  it  was 
soon  after  defeated  by  almost  precisely  the  same  vote.  Then, 
in  the  spring  came  the  extra  session  of  the  new  Congress  (§  458), 
with  large  progressive  gains.  This  time,  however,  the  States- 
Rights  jealousy  of  the  Southern  Senators  was  aroused  suffi- 
ciently to  delay  action  so  long  that  the  measure  was  finally 
lost  in  the  shuffle  at  the  close  of  the  session.  At  the  close  of 
the  next  regular  session,  however  (1912),  Lorimer  was  expelled 
and  the  amendment  passed.  It  now  waits  only  the  certain 
ratification  of  the  States.1 

Meantime,  some  States  have  secured  the  desired  result  by 
indirection  through  their  own  legislation.  Oregon  led  the  way. 
In  1904  a  law  provided  that  each  party  might  nominate  a 
United  States  Senator,  when  one  was  to  be  chosen,  at  the 
regular  party  primaries.  Then,  at  the  regular  election,  the 
people  decided  between  the  candidates  so  nominated.  This,  of 
course,  was  in  law  only  a  recommendation.  Other  States  had 
done  this  much;  but  the  people's  will  had  been  readily  dis- 
regarded by  the  legislatures.  Oregon  went  further.  At  the 
same  election  at  which  the  people  express  their  choice  for 
Senator,  they  choose  also  the  members  of  their  own  legislature. 
Each  candidate  for  the  legislature  is  given  a  chance  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  campaign  to  sign  "  Statement  No.  1,"  promising,  if 
elected,  to  vote  for  the  people's  choice  for  Senator,  or  "State- 
ment No.  2"  declaring  that  he  ivill  hold  the  people's  expression 
merely  as  a  recommendation,  to  be  disregarded  by  him  "  if  the 
reason  for  doing  so  seems  to  me  to  be  sufficient."  Needless  to 
say,  in  any  Senatorial  year,  the  great  majority  of  the  State 

1  Ratified  in  April,  1913,  while  these  pages  were  in  press. 


IN  STATE  AND  NATION  745 

legislature  are  bound  in  advance  by  written  pledges  to  vote 
for  the  people's  choice. 

In  his  Chicago  address  (§  464),  Mr.  Uren  explained  in  detail  how  this 
law  was  intended  to  "side-step  the  Constitution,"  and  then  added: 
u  That  question  was  voted  on  directly  again  last  year  [1908].  One  of  the 
things  the  opposition  had  claimed  as  to  this  Statement  No.  1,  was  that  it 
was  a  trick, — that  we  had  inserted  it  as  a  'joker'  in  the  primary  law, 
and  that  the  people  did  not  know  it  was  there.  So  [the  progressives] 
brought  out,  on  initiative  petition,  a  bill  reading  like  this  : 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon,  That  we,  the  people  of 
the  State  of  Oregon,  do  hereby  instruct  our  representatives  and  our  sena- 
tors, in  our  legislative  assembly,  to  always  vote  as  such  officers  for  those 
candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate  who  have  received  the  highest 
number  of  the  people's  votes  at  the  preceding  general  elections.  .  .  . 

"  We  carried  it  by  70,000  to  21,000.  Then  all  the  politicians  and  every- 
body in  Oregon  knew  that  the  people  of  Oregon  thought  they  understood 
Statement  No.  1  and  intended  that  it  should  be  obeyed." 

In  1909  the  principle  victoriously  withstood  the  severest 
possible  test.  The  people  had  indicated  Mr.  G.  E.  Chamberlin, 
a  trusted  public  servant,  as  their  choice  for  Senator.  Mr. 
Chamberlin  was  a  Democrat ;  the  legislature  was  overwhelm- 
ingly Republican:  then  followed  the  unique  episode  of  a 
Republican  legislature  electing  a  Democrat  to  the  United  States 
Senate.1 

The  plan  has  spread  rapidly.  Nowhere  else  has  it  received 
so  striking  a  vindication ;  but,  in  this  or  in  some  less  binding 
form,  Senators  are  named  by  popular  vote  to-day  (1912)  in 
more  than  half  the  States.  A  movement  is  just  under  way 
to  extend  this  principle  to  the  nomination  of  President  and 
Vice  President,  in  order  to  do  away  with  the  manipulation  of 
bosses  in  National  Conventions  and  to  bring  the  candidates  to 
a  closer  accountability  to  the  people.  Any  State  with  "  direct 
primaries "  finds  it  easy  to  extend  them  so  that  each  party 

1  Some  members  of  the  legislature,  who  hesitated,  were  brought  to  a  sense 
of  the  binding  character  of  their  pledges  by  a  hint  that  the  recall  would  be 
put  at  work. 


746  PROGRESSIVE   DEMOCRACY 

may  name  in  them  its  delegates  to  the  National  Convention, 
and  at  the  same  time  may  instruct  such  delegates  for  whom 
to  vote.  In  1911-1912  several  States  adopted  this  plan, 
while  three  others  have  an  older  and  less  satisfactory  practice 
aiming  at  the  same  end.  This,  too,  is  plainly  a  reform  destined 
for  universal  adoption  within  a  few  years. 

469.  Democracy  in  a  Chosen  Home.  —  There  seems  no  better 
way  to  close  this  study  in  American  democracy  than  to  sum- 
marize recent  progress  in  one  of  the  forty-eight  common- 
wealths. For  this  purpose,  no  other  State  is  quite  so  fit  as 
Oregon.  In  1891  Oregon  adopted  the  Australian  ballot,  not 
in  the  vicious  New  York  form  of  that  day,  but  in  the  best 
form,  without  any  party  designations  whatever.  In  1899  it 
supplemented  this  by  an  admirable  registration  law.  In  1902 
a  vote  of  62,000  to  6000  adopted  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum as  part  of  the  State  constitution.  Then  things  began  to 
move,  most  of  the  subsequent  advances  having  been  secured  by 
these  agencies,  against  the  will  of  the  bosses  and  the  "  inter- 
ests." In  1904  a  direct  primary  law,  proposed  by  the  initia- 
tive, was  carried  by  56,000  to  16,000  —  with  application  to 
all  officers,  from  constable  to  the  governor  and  the  State 
supreme  court,  and,  indirectly  but  effectively,  to  the  United 
States  Senators  (§468).  In  1905  the  legislature,  still  con- 
trolled by  the  old  bosses,  refused  to  extend  the  initiative 
and  referendum  to  city  governments  within  the  State,  but 
the  radicals  took  the  measure  to  the  people  directly,  and  car- 
ried it  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  In  that  session  the 
legislature,  under  pressure  of  public  opinion,  passed  an  anti- 
pass  law,  to  lessen  the  control  of  railroads  over  legislatures 
and  courts.  Because  of  certain  suspected  "jokers"  and  unsat- 
isfactory features,  the  radicals  vetoed  the  law  in  a  referendum 
vote,  and  the  next  year  a  better  law  was  secured.  The  legis- 
lature, for  two  sessions,  defeated  bills  for  taxing  gross  in- 
comes of  telegraph  and  telephone  and  express  companies 
(having  large  revenues  but  little  tangible  property) ;  but,  by 
the  initiative,  the  bills  were  carried  (1905)  by  a  vote  of  nearly 


AND   THE   COMMON   LIFE  747 

12  to  1.  In  1906  the  initiative  secured  two  constitutional 
amendments,  one  providing  home  rule  for  cities,  and  the  other 
placing  the  "recall"  in  the  constitution,  applicable  to  every 
public  official  in  the  State.  A  Corrupt  Practices  act,  turned 
down  by  the  legislature  in  1907,  was  adopted  promptly  by  the 
people.  In  1908  an  initiative  amendment  confirmed  the  pop- 
ular election  of  United  States  Senators.  In  1910  the  Presi- 
dential primary,  and  in  1912  woman  suffrage  were  added  to 
the  constitution. 

With  all  this  democracy,  Oregon  is  one  of  the  States  grow- 
ing most  rapidly  in  population  and  in  property.  That  com- 
monwealth is  a  great  object  lesson  to  the  world.  Scholarly 
critics,  with  scrupulous  academic  honesty,  point  out  many  pos- 
sible abuses  in  the  initiative  and  referendum,  forgetting,  it 
would  seem  sometimes,  the  certain  and  proven  evils  from  their 
absence.  In  1911  Woodrow  Wilson,  once  a  scholar  only,  now 
a  practical  statesman  as  well,  advocated  this  "  Oregon  plan  " 
for  his  own  State.  Taxed  with  inconsistency,  —  according  to 
much  of  his  earlier  writings,  —  his  sufficient  reply  as  a  statesman 
was :  "  Yes,  for  fifteen  years  I  taught  my  classes  that  the  ini- 
tiative and  referendum  would  not  work.  I  can  prove  it  now. 
But  the  trouble  is,  they  do  work."  This  is  Oregon's  answer  to 
her  critics  for  the  other  features  of  her  advanced  democracy  : 
It  does  ivork. 

Three  centuries  ago,  Englishmen  brought  to  our  Atlantic  coasts,  in 
Virginia  and  in  Massachusetts,  a  fosterling  infant  in  swaddling  clothes, 
—  soon  to  grow  into  a  strapping,  troublesome  youth,  scolded  and  reviled 
under  its  abusive  nickname  DEMOCRACY.  We,  have  followed  its  long 
march  and  its  slow  development,  from  stage  to  stage,  throughout  this 
United  States,  to  the  splendid  vigor  of  robust  and  honored  manhood  in 
the  far  Pacific  commonwealths. 

470.  Progressivism  and  the  Common  Life.  —  Outside  the 
field  of  politics,  but  in  close  alliance,  the  spirit  of  progressiv- 
ism is  finding  many  ways  to  make  our  common  life  more  sweet 
and  wholesome.  To  check  various  forms  of  social  disease,  — 
child  labor,  food  adulteration,  industrial  injuries  to  workmen, 


748  PROGRESSIVE   DEMOCRACY 

and  the  like,  —  recourse  has  been  taken  to  democratic  politics 
as  a  matter  of  course.  A  newer  development  is  a  like  recourse  to 
check  physical  disease.  Thus,  in  1903,  Dr.  Charles  W.  Stiles, 
a  scientist  in  the  National  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  an- 
nounced that  a  vast  number  of  people  in  the  South  were  suf- 
fering from  the  hookworm.  This  parasite,  he  proved,  enters 
the  body  through  the  soles  of  the  bare  feet,  common  among 
the  poorer  classes  in  that  region,  and  causes  much  of  the  de- 
plorable inefficiency  and  low  vitality  supposed  formerly  to  be 
inherent  in  the  "  Poor  Whites."  The  discovery  was  combated 
by  shouts  of  ridicule  at  the  "bug  of  laziness,"  and  then  by 
solemn  protests  from  press  and  pulpit  against  so  maligning 
the  South  and  "hurting  business."  The  early  stages  of  the 
investigation  had  been  assisted  by  benefactions  from  Mr.  Rocke- 
feller. But  now  the  statesmen-scientists,  allied  with  the  dis- 
coverer, went  straight  to  the  people  most  interested.  A 
"  campaign  of  education,"  with  popular  lectures  and  lantern 
slides,  resulted  in  a  tremendous  uprising ;  and  multitudes  of 
local  units  have  taken  up  the  great  work  of  curing  the  disease, 
paying  the  cost  out  of  local  funds.  In  nine  years  some  150,000 
recorded  "  cases  "  have  been  restored  to  a  stronger  and  happier 
and  more  useful  life,  and  the  work  is  going  on  at  a  pace  con- 
stantly accelerating.  But,  after  all,  the  most  significant  thing 
about  it  is  the  way  in  which  the  movement  has  led  to  an  ex- 
tension of  the  field  of  self-government.  In  like  fashion  com- 
munities throughout  the  land  are  fighting  other  physical 
plagues,  such  as  tuberculosis,  the  fly,  the  mosquito. 

Even  more  significant  are  the  community  organizations,  not 
to  combat  disease,  but  to  secure  positive  advance  physically 
and  socially,  —  as  in  the  playground  movement,  the  social 
center  movement,  the  extension  of  rural  delivery,  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  parcels  post.  American  democracy,  not  content 
to  wait  the  imperfect  atonement  of  philanthropic  trust  mag- 
nates in  benefactions  to  schools  and  libraries  and  hospitals,  is 
learning  to  trust  itself  for  a  steadier  and  more  independent  prog- 
ress toward  a  finer  and  higher  life  for  all  the  people. 


AND  THE  COMMON  LIFE  749 

Exercise.  —  What  is  a  political  party  for  ?  When  ought  a  voter  to 
leave  his  party  ?     When  should  he  vote  against  some  of  its  candidates  ? 

What  are  the  dates  for  elections  in  your  State  ?  Does  your  city  elect 
its  government  at  the  general  or  at  separate  city  elections  ?  What  are 
your  laws  as  to  (a)  registration  ;  (b)  election  officers  ;  (c)  canvassing  the 
vote  ?  Have  you  the  direct  primary  ?  If  so,  to  what  officers  does  it 
apply  ?  What  other  democratic  features  named  in  §§  459  ff .  has  your 
State  ? 

Has  your  city  a  Home  Rule  charter  ?  If  not,  is  the  responsibility 
upon  the  city,  in  your  case,  or  upon  the  legislature  ?  If  you  have  a 
Home  Rule  charter,  do  you  have  the  "commission  form,"  or  what  form 
of  city  government  ?  Do  you  have  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall 
in  your  city  government  ? 

It  is  desirable  that  large  schools  should  conduct  their  school  and  class 
elections  by  the  Australian  ballot  system,  with  preferential  voting,  to 
accustom  students  to  the  method. 

Explain  the  political  terms  —  Stalwart,  Mugwump,  Standpatter,  In- 
surgent, giving  the  origin  and  period  of  each.  Make  a  list  of  ten  other 
such  terms  for  explanation  by  the  class. 

Review  the  table  of  contents,  to  get  the  interrelation  of  the  parts  of 
the  book.     What  theme  sentences  from  the  headings  can  you  quote  from 


APPENDIX  I 

THE   FEDERAL    CONSTITUTION 

(Recommended  by  the  Philadelphia  Convention  to  the  States,  Septem- 
ber 17,  1787  ;  ratified  by  the  ninth  State,  June  21,  1788  ;  in  effect,  April 
30,  1789"~(B210,212).  The  text  is  that  authorized  by  the  Department  of 
State  and  printed  in  the  Revised  Statutes  (1878),  except  for  the  footnote 
references  and  the  brackets  used  in  a  few  instances  to  inclose  portions  of 
the  document  no  longer  effective,  and  for  the  omission  of  numbers  for  the 
paragraphs.  Interpolated  explanatory  matter  is  in  the  same  type  as  this 
paragraph,  and  is  placed  within  marks  of  parenthesis.)  \ 

We  the  People  1  of  the  United  States,  in  Order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
Union,  establish  Justice,  insure  domestic  Tranquility,  provide  f of  the 
common  defence,  promote  the  general  Welfare,2  and  secure  the 
Blessings  of  Liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  Posterity,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 


ARTICLE   I 

Section  i.  All  legislative  Powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested 
in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives. 

Section  2.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of 
Members  chosen  every  second  Year  by  the  People  of  the  several  States, 
and  the  Electors  in  each  State  shall  have  the  Qualifications  requisite 
for  Electors  of  the  most  numerous  Branch  of  the  State  Legislature.3 

No  Person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not  have  attained  to 
the  Age  of  twenty  five  Years,  and  been  seven  Years  a  Citizen  of  the 
United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of 
that  State  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

Representatives  and  direct  Taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  according  to 
their  respective  numbers  [which  shall  be  determined  by  adding  to  the 


iCf.  §  211.    2§  204  a.    »  Modified  by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment;  and  cf.  §  209. 

751 


If 


752  APPENDIX  I 

whole  Number  of  free  Persons,  including  those  bound  to  Service  for  a 
Term  of  Years],  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  [three  fifths  of  all 
other  Persons].1  The  actual  Enumeration  shall  be  made  within  three 
Years  after  the  first  Meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and 
within  every  subsequent  Term  of  ten  Years,  in  such  Manner  as  they 
shall  by  Law  direct.2  The  number  of  Representatives  shall  not  exceed 
one  for  every  thirty  Thousand,3  but  each  State  shall  have  at  Least  one 
Representative;  [and  until  such  enumeration  shall  be  made,  the  State 
of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled  to  chuse  three,  Massachusetts 
eight,  Rhode-Island  and  Providence  Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five, 
New- York  six,  New  Jersey  four,  Pennsylvania  eight,  Delaware  one, 
Maryland  six,  Virginia  ten,  North  Carolina  five,  South  Carolina  five, 
and  Georgia  three  ]. 

When  vacancies  happen  in  the  Representation  from  any  State,  the 
Executive  Authority  thereof  shall  issue  Writs  of  Election  to  fill  such 
Vacancies. 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  chuse  their  Speaker  and  other 
Officers;  and  shall  have  the  sole  Power  of  Impeachment. 

Section  3.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of 
two  Senators  from  each  State,  chosen  [by  the  Legislature  thereof,] 4  for 
six  Years ;  and  each  Senator  shall  have  one  Vote. 
«^-  [Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  Consequence  of  the 
fi?st  Election,  they  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be  into  three 
Classes.  The  Seats  of  the  Senators  of  the  first  Class  shall  be  vacated 
at  the  Expiration  of  the  second  Year,  of  the  second  Class  at  the  Expira- 
tion of  the  fourth  Year,  and  of  the  third  Class  at  the  Expiration  of  the 
sixth  Year],  so  that  one  third  may  be  chosen  every  second  Year; 5  and 
if  Vacancies  happen  by  Resignation,  or  otherwise,  during  the  Recess 
of  the  Legislature  of  any  State,  the  Executive  thereof  may  make  tem- 
porary Appointments  until  the  next  Meeting  of  the  Legislature,  which 
shall  then  fill  such  Vacancies.  ^ 

No  Person  shall  be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  Age 


1  The  abolition  of  slavery  has  rendered  obsolete  the  clauses  within  brack- 
ets in  this  paragraph. 

2Cf.  §  205  b.  The  first  census  was  taken  in  1790,  the  second  year  of  the 
new  government,  and  one  has  been  taken  in  the  closing  year  of  each  decade 
since. 

3  The  First  Congress  made  the  number  33,000.    It  is  now  (1911)  193,284. 

4  Superseded  by  the  Seventeenth  Amendment. 

5 Precedents  for  this  principle  of  "partial  renewals"  were  found  in  sevei'al 
State  Constitutions. 


APPENDIX  I  753 

of  thirty  Years,  and  been  nine  Years  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that  State  for  which  he 
shall  be  chosen. 

The  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  President  of  the 
Senate,  but  shall  have  no  Vote,  unless  they  1  be  equally  divided. 

The  Senate  shall  chuse  their  other  Officers,  and  also  a  President  pro 
tempore,  in  the  Absence  of  the  Vice  President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise 
the  Office  of  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  Power  to  try  all  Impeachments.  When 
sitting  for  that  Purpose,  they  shall  be  on  Oath  or  Affirmation.  When  the 
President  of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  shall  preside : 
And  no  Person  shall  be  convicted  without  the  Concurrence,  of  two  thirds 
of  the  Members  present. 

Judgment  in  Cases  of  Impeachment  shall  not  extend  further  than  to 

removal  from  Office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy  any  Office  of 

honor,  Trust,  or  Profit  under  the  United  States :  but  the  Party  convicted 

shall  nevertheless  be  liable  and  subject  to  Indictment,  Trial,  Judgment, 

v  and  Punishment,  according  to  Law. 

Section  4.  The  Times,  Places,  and  Manner  of  holding  Elections 
for  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by 
the  Legislature  thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  Law 
make  or  alter  such  Regulations,  except  as  to  the  Places  of  chusing 
Senators.2 

The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every  Year,  and  such 
Meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  unless  they  shall 
by  Law  appoint  a  different  Day. 

Section  5.  Each  House  shall  be  the  Judge  of  the  Elections,  Returns, 
and  Qualifications  of  its  own  Members,  and  a  Majority  of  each  shall 
constitute  a  Quorum  to  do  Business;  but  a  smaller  Number  may  adjourn 
from  day  to  day,  and  may  be  authorized  to  compel  the  Attendance  of 


1  What  is  the  antecedent  ? 

2  A  law  of  1872  requires  all  Representatives  to  he  chosen  on  "  the  Tuesday 
next  after  the  first  Monday  in  November  "  in  each  even-numbered  year;  and 
a  law  of  1871  had  already  ordered  that  all  such  elections  should  he  by  ballot. 
An  Act  of  1866  provided  a  uniform  method  of  electing  Senators :  the  legisla- 
tion of  each  state  (in  which  such  an  election  is  to  be  made)  to  vote  first  in 
separate  Houses,  and,  if  no  one  candidate  received  a  majority  in  each  House, 
then  thereafter  in  joint  session,  taking  at  least  one  ballot  daily  until  some 
candidate  received  a  majority,  or  until  the  legislative  session  came  to  an  end 
without  an  ejection.  Forty-seven  years  later  (1913),  this  law  was  superseded 
by  the  Seventeenth  Amendment. 


754  APPENDIX  I 

absent  Members,  in  such  Manner,  and  under  such  Penalties  as  each 
House  may  provide. 

Each  House  may  determine  the  Rules  of  its  Proceedings,  punish  its 
Members  for  disorderly  Behaviour,  and,  with  the  Concurrence  of  two 
thirds,  expel  a  member. 

Each  House  shall  keep  a  Journal  of  its  Proceedings,  and  from  time 
to  time  publish  the  same,  excepting  such  Parts  as  may  in  their  Judgment 
require  Secrecy;  and  the  Yeas  and  Nays  of  the  Members  of  either 
House  on  any  question  shall,  at  the  Desire  of  one  fifth  of  those  Present, 
be  entered  on  the  Journal. 

Neither  House,  during  the  Session  of  Congress,  shall,  without  the 
Consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  three  days,  nor  to  any 
other  Place  than  that  in  which  the  two  Houses  shall  be  sittings 

Section  6.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  receive  a  Com- 
pensation for  their  Services,  to  be  ascertained  by  Law,  and  paid  out  of 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.1  They  shall  in  all  Cases,  except 
Treason,  Felony,  and  Breach  of  the  Peace,  be  privileged  from  Arrest 
during  their  Attendance  at  the  Session  of  their  respective  Houses,  and 
in  going  to  and  returning  from  the  same;  and  for  any  Speech  or  Debate 
in  either  House,  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  Place. 

No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the  Time  for  which  he 
was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  Office  under  the  Authority  of  the 
United  States,  which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  Emoluments 
whereof  shall  have  been  encreased  during  such  time;  and  no  Person 
holding  any  Office  under  the  United  States,  shall  be  a  Member  of 
either  House  during  his  Continuance  in  Office.2 

Section  7.  All  Bills  for  raising  Revenue  shall  originate  in  the 
House  of  Representatives;  but  the  Senate  may  propose  or  concur  with 
Amendments  as  on  other  Bills. 

Every  Bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  the  Senate,  shall,  before  it  become  a  Law,  be  presented  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States;  If  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it,  but  if 
not  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  Objections,  to  that  House  in  which  it 
shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  Objections  at  large  on  their 
Journal,  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it.  If  after  such  Reconsideration 
two  thirds  of  that  House  shall  agree  to  pass  the  Bill,  it  shall  be  sent, 
together  with  the  Objections,  to  the  other  House,  by  which  it  shall 

iHow  does  this  compare  with  the  rule  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation? 

2  This  paragraph,  designed  to  prevent  corruption  by  direct  use  of  the  exec- 
utive patronage,  was  vehemently  opposed  by  Hamilton  and '  Gouverneur 
Morris.     Cf .  §  200.    See  also  a  similar  clause  in  Articles  of  Confederation. 


APPENDIX  I  755 

likewise  be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  that  House, 
it  shall  become  a  Law.  But  in  all  such  Cases  the  Votes  of  both  Houses 
shall  be  determined  by  Yeas  and  Nays,  and  the  Names  of  the  Persons 
voting  for  and  against  the  Bill  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal  of  each 
House  respectively.  If  any  Bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  President 
within  ten  Days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented 
to  him,  the  Same  shall  be  a  law,  in  like  Manner  as  if  he  had  signed 
it,  unless  the  Congress  by  their  Adjournment  prevent  jts  Return, 
in  which  Case  it  shall  not  be  a  Law.1 


!The  first  veto  provision  in  a  State  Constitution  (New  York,  1777)  ran  as 
follows :  — 

"  Section  III.  And  whereas  laws  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  this  con- 
stitution, or  with  the  public  good,  may  be  hastily  and  unadvisedly  passed : 
Be  it  ordained  that  the  governor  for  the  time  being,  the  chancellor,  and  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court,  or  any  two  of  them  together  with  the  governor, 
shall  be  and  hereby  are  constituted  a  council  to  revise  all  bills  about  to  be 
passed  into  laws  by  the  legislature  ....  [Provision  for  veto  procedure  and 
reconsideration  in  language  essentially  the  same  as  in  Massachusetts  provi- 
sion given  below.] 

"And  in  order  to  prevent  unnecessary  delays,  be  it  further  ordained  that 
if  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  council  within  ten  days  after  it  shall 
have  been  presented,  the  same  shall  be  a  law,  unless  the  Legislature  shall, 
by  their  adjournment,  render  a  return  of  the  said  bill  within  ten  days  im- 
practicable;  in  which  case  the  bill  shall  be  returned  on  the  first  day  of  the 
Legislature  after  the  expiration  of  the  ten  days." 

The  Veto  Provision  in  Massachusetts  Constitution  of  1780  ran  :  — 

"Article  II.  No  bill  or  resolve  of  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives 
shall  become  a  law,  and  have  force  as  such,  until  it  shall  have  been  laid  before 
the  governor  for  his  revisal ;  and  if  he,  upon  such  revision,  approve  thereof,  he 
shall  signify  his  approbation  by  signing  the  same.  But  if  he  have  any  objec- 
tion to  the  passing  of  such  bill  or  resolve,  he  shall  return  the  same,  together 
with  his  objections  thereto,  in  writing,  to  the  senate  or  house  of  representa- 
tives, in  whatsoever  the  same  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objec- 
tions sent  down  by  the  governor,  at  large,  on  their  records,  and  proceed  to 
reconsider  the  said  bill  or  resolve ;  but  if  after  such  reconsideration,  two- 
thirds  of  the  said  senate  or  house  of  representatives  shall,  notwithstanding 
the  objections,  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall,  together  with  the  objections, 
be  sent  to  the  other  branch  of  the  legislature,  when  it  shall  also  be"  reconsid- 
ered, and  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of  the  members  present,  shall  have  the 
force  of  law ;  but  in  all  such  cases,  the  vote  of  both  houses  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  yeas  and  nays ;  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting  for  or  against 
the  said  bill  or  resolve  shall  be  entered  upon  the  public  records  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. 

"  And  in  order  to  prevent  unnecessary  delays,  if  any  bill  or  resolve  shall  not 


756  APPENDIX  I 

Every  Order,  Resolution,  or  Vote  to  which  the  Concurrence  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary  (except  on  a 
question  of  Adjournment)  shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States;  and  before  the  Same  shall  take  Effect,  shall  be  approved 
by  him,  or  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  two  thirds  of 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  according  to  the  Rules  and 
\  Limitations  prescribed  in  the  Case  of  a  Bill. 
— ■']  Section  8.  The  Congress  shall  have  Power  To  lay  and  collect 
Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts,  and  Excises,  to  pay  the  Debts  and  provide 
for  the  common  Defence  and  general  Welfare  of  the  United  States; ! 
but  all  Duties,  Imposts,  and  Excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the 
United  States; 

To  borrow  Money  on  the  Credit  of  the  United  States; 

To  regulate  Commerce  with  foreign  Nations,  and  among  the  several 
States,  and  with  the  Indian  Tribes; 

To  establish  an  uniform  Rule  of  Naturalization,2  and  uniform  Laws 
on  the  subject  of  Bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States; 


be  returned  by  the  governor  within  five  days  after  it  shall  have  been  pre- 
sented, the  same  shall  have  the  force  of  law." 

The  Virginia  Plan  recommended  essentially  the  New  York  method.  The 
Massachusetts  delegates  at  Philadelphia,  however,  contended  strenuously  for 
the  plan  in  use  in  their  State,  and  finally  carried  their  point.  The  "pocket- 
veto  "  clause  (the  last  provision  of  the  text  above)  was  original  in  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

1  Observe  punctuation  and  paragraphing ;  and  see,  for  comment,  §  204  a. 

2  Citizenship,  in  practice,  comes  by  birth  or  by  admission  by  a  court  of 
record  under  authority  of  a  law  of  Congress.  Two  classes  of  people  are  citi- 
zens by  birth:  (1)  according  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  all  who  are  born 
Avithin  the  limits  of  the  United  States  (except  children  of  official  representa- 
tives of  foreign  states,  of  a  foreign  army  occupying  part  of  our  territory) ; 
(2)  according  to  a  law  of  Congress,  all  who  are  born  of  parents  who  are  Amer- 
ican citizens  but  who  were  temporarily  residing  abroad.  No  one  not  included 
in  one  of  the  above  classes  can  become  a  citizen  except  by  (1)  a  special  Act 
of  Congress,  or  (2)  by  admission  by  a  court  of  record  under  authority  of  the 
general  law  passed  by  Congress.  That  law  has  varied  from  time  to  time  (cf . 
index,  for  some  of  the  more  important  variations) ;  but  the  usual  period  of 
residence  required  for  an  alien,  previous  to  admission,  has  been  five  years,  — 
which  is  also  the  present  requirement  (1913) .  The  present  law  (passed  in  1906) 
requires  also  a  two-years'  previous  "  notice  of  intention,"  and  excludes  all 
who  cannot  "  speak  "  English  (unless  homesteaders),  all  polygamists,  and  all 
who  disbelieve  in  "  organized  government."  Some  States,  however,  permit 
aliens  to  vote  after  receiving  their  "first  papers,"  —  i.  e.  after  making  the 
preliminary  "declaration  of  intention"  before  a  clerk  of  court.    The  final 


APPENDIX  I  757 

To  coin  Money,  regulate  the  Value  thereof,  and  of  foreign  Coin, 
and  fix  the  Standard  of  Weights  and  Measures; 

To  provide  for  the  Punishment  of  counterfeiting  the  Securities 
and  current  Coin  of  the  United  States; 

To  establish  Post  Offices  and  post  Roads; 

To  promote  the  Progress  of  Science  and  useful  Arts,  by  securing 
for  limited  Times  to  Authors  and  Inventors  the  exclusive  Right  to  their 
respective  Writings  and  Discoveries; 

To  constitute  Tribunals  inferior  to  the  supreme  Court; 

To  define  and  punish  Piracies  and  Felonies  committed  on  the  high 
Seas,  and  Offences  against  the  Law  of  Nations; 

To  declare  War,  grant  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal,  and  make 
Rules  concerning  Captures  on  Land  and  Water; 

To  raise  and  support  Armies,  but  no  Appropriation  of  Money  to  that 
Use  shall  be  for  a  longer  Term  than  two  Years; 

To  provide  and  maintain  a  Navy; 

To  make  Rules  for  the  Government  and  Regulation  of  the  land  and 
naval  Forces; 

To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  Militia  to  execute  the  Laws  of  the 
Union,  suppress  Insurrections  and  repel  Invasions; 

To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining,  the  Militia, 
and  for  governing  such  Part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  Service 
of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively,  the  Appoint- 
ment of  the  Officers,  and  the  Authority  of  training  the  Militia  according 
to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress : 

To  exercise  exclusive  Legislation  in  all  Cases  whatsoever,  over  such 
District  (not  exceeding  ten  Miles  square)  as  may,  by  Cession  of  partic- 
ular States,  and  the  Acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  Seat  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise  like  Authority  over 
all  Places  purchased  by  the  Consent  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in 
which  the  same  shall  be,  for  the  Erection  of  Forts,  Magazines,  Arsenals, 
dock- Yards,  and  other  needful  Buildings;  —  And 

To  make  all  Laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  x  for  carrying 
into  Execution  the  foregoing  Powers,  and  all  other  Powers  vested  by  this 
Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  Depart- 
ment or  Officer  thereof. 


admission  rests  with  a  judge,—  who  may  make  his  examination  of  the  appli- 
cant rigid  or  a  mere  matter  of  form.  The  power  has  been  sometimes  abused 
for  political  purposes,  both  in  excluding  and  in  admitting  unfit  aliens. 

*For  comment  and  reference,  see  §§  204  b,  222,  280  b.    Cf.  also  with  enumer- 
ation of  powers  in  Articles  of  Confederation. 


758  APPENDIX  I 

Section  9.  [The  Migration  or  Importation  of  such  Persons  as  any  of 
the  States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  pro- 
hibited by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  Year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight,  but  a  Tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  Importation,  not 
exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  Person.  ] 

The  Privilege  of  the  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  shall  not  be  suspended, 
unless  when  in  Cases  of  Rebellion  or  Invasion  the  public  Safety  may 
require  it. 

No  Bill  of  Attainder  or  ex  post  facto  Law  shall  be  passed. 

No  Capitation,  or  other  direct,1  Tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  Propor- 
tion to  the  Census  or  Enumeration  herein  before  directed  to  be  taken. 

No  Tax  or  Duty  shall  be  laid  on  Articles  exported  from  any  State. 

No  Preference  shall  be  given  by  any  Regulation  of  Commerce  or 
Revenue  to  the  Ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another:  nor  shall 
Vessels  bound  to,  or  from,  one  State,  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay 
Duties  in  another.2 

No  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  but  in  Consequence  of 
Appropriations  made  by  Law;  and  a  regular  Statement  and  Account  of 
the  Receipts  and  Expenditures  of  all  public  Money  shall  be  published 
from  time  to  time. 

No  Title  of  Nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  United  States :  And  no 
Person  holding  any  Office  of  Profit  or  Trust  under  them,  shall,  without 
the  Consent  of  the'  Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  Emolument,  Office, 
or  Title,  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  King,  Prince,  or  foreign  State. 

Section  10.  No  State  shall  enter  into  any  Treaty,  Alliance,  or 
Confederation ;  grant  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal ;  coin  Money ; 
emit  Bills  of  Credit;  make  any  Thing  but  gold  and  silver  Coin  a  Tender 
in  Payment  of  Debts;  pass  any  Bill  of  Attainder,  ex  post  facto  Law,  or. 
Law  impairing  the  Obligation  of  Contracts,  or  grant  any  Title  of  Nobility. 

No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  the  Congress,  lay  any  Im- 
posts or  Duties  on  Imports  or  Exports,  except  what  may  be  absolutely 
necessary  for  executing  its  inspection  Laws :  and  the  net  Produce  of  all 
Duties  and  Imposts,  laid  by  any  State  on  Imports  or  Exports,  shall  be 
for  the  Use  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States;  and  all  such  Laws 
shall  be  subject  to  the  Revision  and  Controul  of  the  Congress. 

No  State  shall,  without  the  Consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  Duty  of 
Tonnage,  keep  Troops,  or  Ships  of  War  in  time  of  Peace,  enter  into 
any  Agreement  or  Compact  with  another  State,  or  with  a  foreign  Power, 

1  Modified,  so  far  as  "direct"  income  taxes  are  concerned,  by  the  Six- 
teenth Amendment. 

2  With  what  clause  in  Section  8  might  this  paragraph  have  been  combined? 


APPENDIX  I  759 

or  engage  in  War,  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  Danger 
as  will  not  admit  of  delay.1 

(Exercise  on  Article  One. — Are  the  names  in  Section  I  new  in  American 
history  ?  Can  Congress  constitutionally  provide  for  woman  suffrage  by 
law  ?  If  a  Senator  from  your  State  were  to  die  to-morrow,  how  would  his 
place  be  filled  ?  Would  it  have  been  filled  differently,  if  it  had  happened 
at  any  other  time  during  the  year  ?  How  long  would  the  new  Senator 
keep  his  seat  ?  (The  same  questions  as  to  a  Representative. )  How  many 
Representatives  has  your  State  ?  When  did  it  last  gain  or  lose  one  ? 
How  many  has  the  largest  State  in  the  Union  (cf.  World  Almanac)? 
How  many  has  the  smallest  State  ?  Do  you  need  a  World  Almanac  to 
answer  the  last  question  ?  Under  what  possible  conditions  can  the  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  Senate  vote  even  when  there  is  no  tie  ?  With  what 
provision  in  Section  9  is  the  last  paragraph  of  Section  3  logically  connected  ? 
If  a  Representative  utters  plain  treason  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  can  he 
be  punished  ?  How  ?  Commit  to  memory  Section  8.  Make  two 
questions  upon  naturalization  and  citizenship,  based  upon  the  note  on 
page  756.  Write  appropriate  headings  for  each  section  ;  i.e.  for  Section 
8,  "Powersof  Congress.") 

ARTICLE  H 

Section  i.  The  executive  Power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  He  shall  hold  his  Office  during  the  Term  of 
four  Years,  and,  together  with  the  Vice  President,  chosen  for  the  same 
Term,  be  elected,  as  follows 

Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  Manner  as  the  Legislature  thereof 
may  direct,  a  Number  of  Electors,  equal  to  the  whole  Number  of  Senators 
and  Representatives  to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  in  the  Congress: 
but  no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  Person  holding  an  Office  of  Trust 
or  Profit  under  the.  United  States,  shall  be  appointed  an  Elector. 

[The  Electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States,  and  vote  by  Ballot 
for  two  Persons,  of  whom  one  at  least  shall  not  be  an  Inhabitant  of  the 
same  State  with  themselves.  And  they  shall  make  a  List  of  all  the 
Persons  voted  for,  and  of  the  Number  of  Votes  for  each;  which  List  they 
shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the  Seat  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  President  of  the  Senate.  The 
President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  Presence  of  the  Senate  and  House 

1  Additional  prohibitions  upon  the  States  are  contained  in  the  Thirteenth, 
Fourteenth,  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  just  as  certain  additional  prohibitions 
upon  Congress  are  contained  in  Amendments  1-8.  Compare  with  Section  10 
the  summary  of  prohibitions  upon  the  States  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 


760  APPENDIX   I 

of  Representatives,  open  all  the  Certificates,  and  the  Votes  shall  then  be 
counted.  The  Person  having  the  greatest  Number  of  Votes  shall  be  the 
President,  if  such  Number  be  a  Majority  of  the  whole  Number  of  Elec- 
tors appointed;  and  if  there  be  more  than  one  who  have  such  Majority, 
and  have  an  equal  Number  of  Votes,  then  the  House  of  Representatives 
shall  immediately  chuse  by  Ballot  one  of  them  for  President;  and  if  no 
Person  have  a  Majority,  then  from  tlie  five  highest  on -the  List  the  said 
House  shall  in  like  Manner  chuse  the  President.  But  in  chusing  the 
President,  the  Votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  Representation  from 
each  State  having  one  Vote;  A  quorum  for  this  Purpose  shall  consist  of 
a  Member  or  Members  from  two  thirds  of  the  States,  and  a  Majority 
of  all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a  Choice.  In  every  Case,  after 
the  Choice  of  the  President,  the  Person  having  the  greatest  Number  of 
Votes  of  the  Electors  shall  be  the  Vice  President.  But  if  there  should 
remain  two  or  more  who  have  equal  Votes,  the  Senate  shall  chuse  from 
them  by  Ballot  the  Vice  President.  ] 1 

The  Congress  may  determine  the  Time  of  chusing  the  Electors,  and 
the  Day  on  which  they  shall  give  their  Votes;  which  Day  shall  be  the 
same  throughout  the  United  States. 

No  Person  except  a  natural  born  Citizen,  or  a  Citizen  of  the  United 
States,  at  the  time  of  the  Adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible 
to  the  Office  of  President;  neither  shall  any  Person  be  eligible  to  that 
Office  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  Age  of  thirty  five  Years,  and 
been  fourteen  Years  a  Resident  within  the  United  States. 

In  Case  of  the  Removal  of  the  President  from  Office,  or  of  his  Death, 
Resignation,  or  Inability  to  discharge  the  Powers  and  Duties  of  the  said 
Office,  the  Same  shall  devolve  on  the  Vice  President,  and  the  Congress 
may  by  Law  provide  for  the  Case  of  Removal,  Death,  Resignation,  or 
Inability,  both  of  the  President  and  Vice  President,  declaring  what 
Officer  shall  then  act  as  President,  and  such  Officer  shall  act  accordingly, 
until  the  Disability  be  removed,  or  a  President  shall  be  elected.2 

1  Superseded  by  Twelfth  Amendment,  which  might  have  been  substituted 
for  this  paragraph  in  the  body  of  the  document. 

2  In  1792  Congress  provided  that  the  president  pro  tern  of  the  Senate  should 
be  next  in  succession,  and  after  him  the  Speaker  of  the  House.  In  1886  (Jan. 
19),  this  undesirable  law  was  supplanted  by  a  new  one  placing  the  succession 
(after  the  Vice  President)  in  the  following  order :  Secretary  of  State,  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  Secretary  of  War,  Attorney  General,  Postmaster  General, 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Cannot  the  student  see  on 
what  ground  these  officers  are  named  in  this  order?  Cf.  §  215  and  note. 
This  provides  securely  against  any  interregnum,  and  (what  is  almost  as  im- 
portant) against  a  transfer  by  accident  to  an  opposite  political  party. 


APPENDIX  I  761 

The  President  shall,  at  stated  Times,  receive  for  his  Services,  a  Com- 
pensation, which  shall  neither  be  encreased  nor  diminished  during  the 
Period  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive 
within  that  Period  any  other  Emolument  from  the  United  States,  or 
any  of  them.1 

Before  he  enter  on  the  Execution  of  his  Office,  he  shall  take  the  fol- 
lowing Oath  or  Affirmation :  — 

"I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the 
Office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  my 
Ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States." 

Section  2.  The  President  shall  be  Commander  in  Chief  of  the  Army 
and  Navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  Militia  of  the  several  States, 
when  called  into  the  actual  Service  of  the  United  States;  he  may  require 
the  Opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principal  Officer  in  each  of  the  executive 
Departments,  upon  any  Subject  relating  to  the  Duties  of  their  respective 
Offices,2  and  he  shall  have  Power  to  grant  Reprieves  and  Pardons  for 
Offences  against  the  United  States,  except  in  Cases  of  Impeachment. 

He  shall  have  Power,  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of  the 
Senate,  to  make  Treaties,  provided  two  thirds  of  the  Senators  present 
concur;  and  he  shaffnominate,  and  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent 
of  the  Senate,3  shall  appoint  Ambassadors,  other  public  Ministers  and 
Consuls,  Judges  of  the  supreme  Court,  and  all  other  Officers  of  the 
United  States,  whose  Appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided 
for,  and  which  shall  be  established  by  Law:  but  the  Congress  may  by 
Law  vest  the  Appointment  of  such  inferior  Officers,  as  they  think  proper, 
in  the  President  alone,  in  the  Courts  of  Law,  or  in  the  Heads  of  Depart- 
ments. 

The  President  shall  have  Power  to  fill  up  all  Vacancies  that  may 
happen  during  the  Recess  of  the  Senate,  by  granting  Commissions  which 
shall  expire  at  the  End  of  their  next  Session. 

Section  3.     He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the  Congress  Infor- 


1  What  is  the  antecedent  of  "  them  "  ?  The  salary  of  George  Washington 
was  fixed  by  the  First  Congress  at  $25,000.  This  amount  remained  unchanged 
until  1871,  when  it  was  made  $50,000.  In  1909  the  salary  was  raised  to 
$75,000.  Large  allowances  are  made  also,  in  these  latter  days,  for  expenses  of 
various  sorts,  —  one  item  of  $25,000,  for  instance,  for  traveling  expenses, — 
which  is  the  reason  the  salary  is  commonly  referred  to  as  $100,000. 

2  For  the  development  of  the  "  Cabinet,"  cf .  §  215. 

3  For  different  views,  at  the  beginning  of  the  government,  as  to  this  clause, 
and  for  the  settlement  in  practice,  see  §  214. 


762  APPENDIX  I 

mation  of  the  State  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their  Consideration 
such  Measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient ;  he  may,  on 
extraordinary  Occasions,  convene  both  Houses,  or  either  of  them,  and 
in  Case  of  Disagreement  between  them,  with  Respect  to  the  Time  of 
Adjournment,  he  may  adjourn  them  to  such  Time  as  he  shall  think 
proper;  he  shall  receive  Ambassadors  and  other  public  Ministers;  he 
shall  take  Care  that  the  Laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  Commis- 
sion all  the  Officers  of  the  United  States. 

Section  4.  The  President,  Vice  President,  and  all  civil  Officers  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  Impeachment  for, 
and  conviction  of,  Treason,  Bribery,  or  other  high  Crimes  and  Mis- 
demeanours. 

ARTICLE  m 

Section  1.  The  judicial  Power  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  vested 
in  one  supreme  Court,  and  in  such  inferior  Courts  as  the  Congress  may 
from  time  to  time  ordain  and  establish.  The  Judges,  both  of  the 
supreme  and  inferior  Courts,  shall  hold  their  Offices  during  good 
Behavior,  and  shall,  at  stated  Times,  receive  for  their  Services,  a  Com- 
pensation, which  shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  Continuance  in 
Office. 

Section  2.  The  judicial  Power  shall  extend  to  all  Cases,  in  Law  and 
Equity,  arising  under  this  Constitution,  the  Laws  of  tl^e  United  States, 
and  Treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  Authority;  — 
to  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public  Ministers  and  Consuls; 
—  to  all  Cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  Jurisdiction;  —  to  Contro- 
versies to  which  the  United  States  shall  be  a  Party;  —  to  Controversies 
between  two  or  more  States;  —  between  a  State  and  Citizens  or  another 
State1;  —  between  Citizens  of  different  States,  —  between  Citizens 
of  the  same  State  claiming  lands  under  Grants  of  different  States,— 
and  between  a  State,  or  the  Citizens  thereof,  and  foreign  States,  Citizens 
or  Subjects. 

In  all  Cases  affecting  Ambassadors,  other  public  Ministers  and  Con- 
suls, and  those  in  which  a  State  shall  be  Party,  the  supreme  Court  shall 
have  original  Jurisdiction.  In  all  the  other  Cases  before  mentioned,  the 
supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  Jurisdiction,  both  as  to  Law  and 
Fact,  with  such  Exceptions,  and  under  such  Regulations  as  the  Congress 
shall  make. 

The  trial  of  all  Crimes,  except  in  Cases  of  Impeachment,  shall  be  by 

1  Limited  by  the  Eleventh  Amendment  to  cases  begun  by  a  State  as  plaintiff. 
Cf.  §  218. 


\  - 

; 

APPENDIX  I  763 

» 

Jury;  and  such  Trial  shall  be  held  in  the  State  where  the  said  Crimes 
shall  have  been  committed;  but  when  not  committed  within  any  State, 
the  Trial  shall  be  at  such  Place  or  Places  as  the  Congress  may  by  Law 
have  directed. 

Section  3.      Treason  against  the  United  States,  shall  consist  only  in    * 
levying  War  against  them,  or  in  adhering  to  their  Enemies,  giving  them 
Aid  and  Comfort.     No  Person  shall  be  convicted  of  Treason  unless  on 
the  Testimony  of  two  Witnesses  to  the  same  overt  Act,  or  on  Confession 
in  open  Court.  ,W 

The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  declare  the  Punishment  of  Treason^ 
but  no  attainder  of  Treason  shall  work  Corruption  of  Blood,  or  Forfeiture 
except  during  the  Life  of  the  Person  attainted.1 

(On  the  appellate  jurisdiction,  cf.  §§  207  a  and  2^7.  Section  25  of  the 
Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  still  in  force,  defines  that  jurisdiction  as  follows  : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  a  final  judgment  or  decree  in  any 
suit,  in  the  highest  court  of  law  or  equity  of  a  State  in  which  a  decision 
in  the  suit  could  be  had,  when  is  drawn  in  question  the  validity  of  a 
treaty  or  statute  of,  or  an  authority  exercised  under,  the  United  States, 
and  the  decision  is  against  their  validity  ;  or  when  is  drawn  in  question 
the  validity  of  a  statute  of,  or  an  authority  exercised  under,  any  State,  on 
the  ground  of  their  being  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  treaties,  or  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  decision  is  in  favor  of  such  their  validity ; 
or  when  is  drawn  in  question  the  construction  of  any  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution, or  of  a  treaty,  or  statute  of,  or  commission  held  under,  the 
United  States,  and  the  decision  is  against  the  title,  right,  privilege,  or 
exemption,  specially  set  up  or  claimed  .  .  .  under  such  clause  of  the 
said  Constitution,  treaty,  statute,  or  commission,  may  be  re-examined, 
and  revised  or  affirmed  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  \ 
a  writ  of  error  ..." 

On  the  establishment  of  "inferior  courts,"  cf.  §  217.  Such  courts  at 
present  (1913)  are,  from  the  bottom  up  :  — 

1.  District  Courts.  Over  ninety  in  1911  ;  the  law  of  1789  provided  for 
thirteen. 

2.  Circuit  Courts.  Nine,  each  three  justices.  The  first  law,  1789, 
provided  three  circuit  courts,  but  no  special  circuit  judges  ;  a  circuit  court 
then  consisted  of  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  "  or  circuit "  and  one  or 
more  judges  of  district  courts  included  within  the  circuit.     This  remained 

1  The  last  thi-ee  paragraphs  of  this  section  might  have  been  included  ad- 
vantageously in  a  "  bill  of  rights."  What  preceding  paragraphs  might  have 
been  so  disposed  of?  ,1  f 

\*    *' 

t  7 


pivrr 


764  APPENDIX  I 

the  rule  with  a  brief  attempt  at  change  in  1801,  as  described  in  §  240,  until 
1866,  when  separate  circuit  justices  were  provided. 

3.  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals:  One  for  each  of  the  nine  circuits,  com- 
posed of  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  of  other  Federal  judges  — 
not  less  than  three  in  all,  and  not  including  any  justice  from  whose  decision 
the  appeal  is  taken.  This  order  of  courts  was  instituted  in  1891,  to  relieve 
the  Supreme  Court  which  was  then  hopelessly  overburdened  with  appeals 
from  lower  courts.  In  most  cases,  now,  the  decision  of  the  circuit  court 
of  appeals  is  final. 

4.  The  Supreme  Court.  One  Chief  Justice  and  eight  Associate 
Justices.  Its  business  now  is  confined  very  largely  to  those  supremely 
important  matters  specified  in  the  Constitution  and  in  the  law  of  1789 
quoted  above. 

There  are  also  three  special  courts,  somewhat  outside  this  system  :  (1) 
the  Federal  Court  of  Claims,  to  determine  money  claims  against  the 
United  States,^established  in  1855 ;  (2)  Court  of  Customs  Appeals, 
established  in  1909  ;  and  (3)  the  CommerceTCourt,  created  in  1910,  to 
revise  the  work  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.) 

ARTICLE  IV 

Section  i.  Full  Faith  and  Credit  shall  be  given  in  each  State  to  the 
public  Acts,  Records,  and  judicial  Proceedings  of  every  other  State. 
And  the  Congress  may  by  general  Laws  prescribe  the  Manner  in  which 
such  Acts,  Records  and  Proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  Effect 
thereof. 

Section  2.  The  Citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  Privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  Citizens  in  the  several  States.1 

A  Person  charged  in  any  State  with  Treason,  Felony,  or  other  Crime, 
who  shall  flee  from  Justice,  and  be  found  in  another  State,  shall  on 
Demand  of  the  executive  Authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be 
delivered  up,  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having  Jurisdiction  of  the  Crime. 

[No  Person  held  to  Service  or  Labour  in  one  State,  under  the  Laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  Consequence  of  any  Law  or 
Regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  Service  or  Labour,  but 
shall  be  delivered  up  on  Claim  of  the  Party  to  whom  such  Service  or 
Labour  may  be  due].2 

Section  3.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this 
Union;  but  no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  Juris- 
diction of  any  other  State;  nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  Junction  of 

1  Extended  by  Fourteenth  Amendment. 

2  Superseded  by  Thirteenth  Amendment  so  far  as  it  relates  te  slaves. 


APPENDIX  I  765 

two  or  more  States,  or  Parts  of  States,  without  the  Consent  of  the  Legis- 
latures of  the  States  concerned  as  well  as  of  the  Congress. 

The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful 
Rules  and  Regulations  respecting  the  Territory  or  other  Property 
belonging  to1  the  United  States;  and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  Prejudice  any  Claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of 
any  particular  State. 

Section  4.  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in 
this  Union  a  Republican  Form  of  Government,  and  shall  protect  each 
of  them  against  Invasion;  and  on  Application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of 
the  Executive  (when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against 
domestic  Violence. 

ARTICLE  V2 

The  Congress,  whenever  two  thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  deem  it 
necessary,  shall  propose  Amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or,  on  the 
Application  of  the  Legislatures  of  two  thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall 
call  a  Convention  for  proposing  Amendments,  which,  in  either  Case, 
shall  be  valid  to  all  Intents  and  Purposes,  as  Part  of  this  Constitution, 
when  ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of  three  fourths  of  the  several  States, 
or  by  Conventions  in  three  fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other 
Mode  of  Ratification  may  be  proposed  by  the  Congress;  Provided  [that 
no  Amendment  which  may  be  made  prior  to  the  Year  One  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  eight  shall  in  any  Manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth 
Clauses  in  the  Ninth  Section  of  the  first  Article;  and]  that  no  State, 
without  its  Consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  Suffrage  in  the 
Senate. 

ARTICLE  VI 

All  Debts  contracted  and  Engagements  entered  into,  before  the 
Adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United 
States  under  this  Constitution,  as  under  the  Confederation. 

This  Constitution,  and  the  Laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be 
made  in  Pursuance  thereof;  and  all  Treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be 
made,  under  the  Authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme 
Law  of  the  Land;  and  the  Judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby, 

1  On  the  significance  of  this  language  as  to  Territory,  cf .  §  260  c. 

2  Article  V,  as  far  as  to  the  brackets,  should  be  committed  to  memory. 
Note  the  four  varieties  of  amendment  provided.  Only  one  has  ever  been 
used  (1913).  Congress  has  always  proposed,  and  State  legislatures  ratified. 
On  the  amending  clause  in  general,  cf .  index. 


766  APPENDIX   I 

any  Thing  in  the  Constitution  or  Laws  of  any  State  to  the  Contrary 
notwithstanding.1 

The  Senators  and  Representatives  before  mentioned,  and  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  several  State  Legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial 
Officers,  both  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be 
bound  by  Oath  or  Affirmation,  to  support  this  Constitution;  but  no 
religious  Test  shall  ever  be  require^  as  a  Qualification  to  any  Office  or 
public  Trust  under  the  United  States. 

ARTICLE  VII 

The  Ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  nine  States,  shall  be  sufficient 
for  the  Establishment  of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  ratify- 
ing the  Same. 

{Exercise.  —  Write  headings  for  each  Article  in  the  Constitution.  Re- 
state Sections  1  and  2  of  Article  IV  in  form  appropriate  for  insertion 
in  Section  10  of  Article  I.  Cf.  with  corresponding  provisions  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  and  in  the  Constitution  of  the  New  England 
Confederation  {Source  Book,  if  accessible).  Can  you  restate  Sections 
3  and  4  so  as  to  fit  them  for  insertion  under  any  preceding  Article  ? 
Observe  that  Articles  I,  II,  III,  and  V  give  the  framework.  Article  VII, 
highly  important  at  the  time,  was  temporary  only  in  significance. ) 

AMENDMENTS 

[i]2 

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion, 
or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof;  or  abridging  the  freedom  of 
speech,  or  of  the  press;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assemble, 
and  to  petition  the  Government  for  a  redress  of  grievances. 


A  well  regulated  Militia,  being  necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free 
State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  Arms,  shall  not  be 
infringed. 

I ^ ' ' ' ' 

1  On  the  history  of  this  clause,  cf .  §  207  a. 

2  Originally,  the  first  twelve  amendments  were  not  numbered  in  the  official 
manuscripts. 


APPENDIX   I  767 

[Hi] 

No  Soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace  be  quartered  in  any  house,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Owner,  nor  in  time  of  war,  but  in  a  manner  to 
be  prescribed  by  Law. 

[iv] 

The  right  of  the  people  to  be  se^ire  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers, 
and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be 
violated,  and  no  Warrants  shall  issue,  but  upon  probable  cause,  sup- 
ported by  Oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to 
be  searched,  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized. 

M 

v 

No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital,  or  otherwise  infa- 
mous crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  Grand  Jury 
except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  Militia, 
when  in  actual  service  in  time  of  War  or  public  danger;  nor  shall  any 
person  be  subject  for  the  same  offence  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of 
life  or  limb;  nor  shall  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case  to  be  a  witness 
against  himself,  nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without 
due  process  of  law;  nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for  public  use, 
without  just  compensation. 

[vi] 

In  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a 
speedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State  and  district 
wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed,  which  district  shall  have 
been  previously  ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature 
and  cause  of  the  accusation;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses  against 
him;  to  have  compulsory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor, 
and  to  have  the  Assistance  of  Counsel  for  his  defence. 

[vii] 

In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceed 
twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved,  and  no  fact 
tried  by  a  jury  shall  be  otherwise  re-examined  in  any  Court  of  the  United 
States,  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 


Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines  imposed,  nor 
cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 


768  APPENDIX  I 

[ix] 

The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights,  shall  not  be 
construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  people. 

[x]1 

The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  Ignited  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor 
prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively 
or  to  the  people. 

[xi]2 

The  Judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  construed  to 
extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prosecuted  against 
one  of  the  United  States  by  Citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  Citizens 
or  Subjects  of  any  Foreign  State. 

[xii]3 

The  Electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States,  and  vote  by  ballot 
for  President  and  Vice  President,  one  of  whom,  at  least,  shall  not  be  an 
inhabitant  of  the  same  State  with  themselves;  they  shall  name  in  their 
ballots  the  person  voted  for  as  President,  and  in  distinct  ballots  the 
person  voted  for  as  Vice  President,  and  they  shall  make  distinct  lists 
of  all  persons  voted  for  as  President,  and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as 
Vice  President,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each,  which  lists  they 
shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the  seat  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  President  of  the  Senate;  —  The 
President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates  and  the  votes  shall  then  be 
counted;  —  The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  for  Presi- 
dent, shall  be  the  President,  if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole 
number  of  Electors  appointed;  and  if  no  person  have  such  majority, 
then  from  the  persons  having  the  highest  numbers  not  exceeding  three 
on  the  list  of  those  voted  for  as  President,  the  House  of  Representatives 
shall  choose  immediately,  by  ballot,  the  President.  But  in  choosing  the 
President,  the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  representation  from 

1  These  first  ten  amendments  were  in  force  after  November  3,  1791.  Cf. 
comment  in  §  216.  They  are  usually  referred  to  as  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is 
a  suggestive  exercise  to  rewrite  the  "hill  of  rights,"  incorporating  all  those 
features  of  that  character  which  are  included  in  the  body  of  the  Constitution. 

2  Proclaimed  to  be  in  force  Jan.  8,  1798.    For  the  history,  cf.  §  217. 

3  Proclaimed  in  force  Sept.  25,  1804.    Cf.  §  241. 


APPENDIX  I  769 

each  State  having  one  vote;  a  quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a 
member  or  members  from  two-thirds  of  the  States,  and  a  majority  of 
all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a  choice.  And  if  the  House  of 
Representatives  shall  not  choose  a  President  whenever  the  right  of 
choice  shall  devolve  upon  them,  before  the  fourth  day  of  March  next 
following,  then  the  Vice  President  shall  act  as  President,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  death  or  other  constitutional  disability  of  the  President.  —  The 
person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  as  Vice  President,  shall  be 
the  Vice  President,  if  such  number  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of 
Electors  appointed,  and  if  no  person  have  a  majority,  then  from  the  two 
highest  numbers  on  the  list,  the  Senate  shall  choose  the  Vice  President ; 
a  quorum  for  the  purpose  shall  consist  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number 
of  Senators,  and  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  shall  be  necessary  to  a 
choice.  But  no  person  constitutionally  ineligible  to  the  office  of  Presi- 
dent shall  be  eligible  to  that  of  Vice  President  of  the  United  States. 

[xiii]1 

Section  i.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a 
punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted, 
shall  exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their  juris- 
diction. 

Section  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by 
appropriate  legislation. 

[xiv]2 

Section  1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce 
any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States:  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life, 
liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  person 
within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

Section  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  num- 
ber of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when 
the  right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  President 
and  Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  Representatives  in  Congress, 

1  Proclaimed  in  force  Dec.  18,  1865.  On  Amendments  Thirteen  to  Fifteen 
inclusive,  cf .  §§  377,  385  ff. 

2  Proclaimed  in  force  July  28,  1868. 


770  APPENDIX  I 

the  Executive  and  Judicial  officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such 
State,  being  twenty  one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion,  or  other 
crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  pro- 
portion which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole 
number  of  male  citizens  twenty  one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 

Section  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  or  Representative  in 
Congress,  or  elector  of  President  and  Vice  President,  or  hold  any  office, 
civil  or  military,  under  the  United  States,  or  under  any  State,  who, 
having  previously  taken  an  oath,  as  a  member  of  Congress,  or  as  an 
officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  State  legislature,  or 
as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion 
against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But 
Congress  may  by  a  vote  of  two- thirds  of  each  House,  remove  such 
disability. 

Section  4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States, 
authorized  by  law,  including  debts  incurred  for  payment  of  pensions 
and  bounties  for  services  in  suppressing  insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall 
not  be  questioned.  But  neither  the  United  States  nor  any  State  shall 
assume  or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection  or 
rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emanci- 
pation of  any  slave;  but  all  such  debts,  obligations  and  claims  shall  be 
held  illegal  and  void. 

Section  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate 
legislation,  the  provisions  of  this  article. 

[XV]1 

Section  1.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall 
not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Section  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article 
by  appropriate  legislation. 


The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  on  incomes, 
from  whatever  source  derived,  without  apportionment  among  the  States, 
and  without  regard  to  any  census  or  enumeration. 

1  Proclaimed  in  force  March  30,  1870. 

2  Ratified  in  1913,  while  these  pages  were  at  press. 


APPENDIX  I  771 


[xviij » 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two  Senators 
from  each  State,  elected  by  the  people  thereof  for  six  years ;  and  each 
Senator  shall  have  one  vote.  The  electors  in  each  State  shall  have 
the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch 
of  the  State  Legislatures. 

When  vacancies  happen  in  the  representation  of  any  State  in  the 
Senate,  the  executive  authority  of  such  State  shall  issue  writs  of  elec- 
tion to  fill  such  vacancies :  Provided,  that  the  Legislature  of  any  State 
may  empower  the  executive  thereof  to  make  temporary  appointments 
until  the  people  fill  the  vacancies  by  election  as  the  legislature  may 
direct. 

This  amendment  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  affect  the  election 
or  term  of  any  Senator  chosen  before  it  becomes  valid  as  part  of  the 
Constitution. 

« f 

1  Ratified  in  1913,  while  these  pages  were  at  press. 


APPENDIX  II 


A  SELECT  LIBRARY   ON  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Adams  (Brooks).  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts  (an  anti-Puritan  account 
of  the  overthrow  of  Puritan  theocracy).    Houghton.     $1.50. 

Adams  (Henry).  History  of  the  United  States  in  the  Administration  of 
Jefferson.  (This  is  part  of  a  larger  work  continuing  the  story  to  1824. 
In  all  there  are  nine  volumes.  Volumes  I  and  II  ($2.00  each)  may  profit- 
ably be  used  by  students.)    Scribner. 

Adams  and  Sumner.     Labor  Problems.     Macmillan.     $1.50. 

Andrews    (C.   M.).      Colonial  Self-government.     (American  Nation   Series.) 

Harpers.    $2.00. 
The  Colonial  Period.     (Home  University  Library.)     Holt.    $.50. 

Babcock  (K.  C).  Rise  of  American  Nationality.  (American  Nation  Series.) 
Harpers.     $2.00. 

Baldwin  (S.  E.).  American  Judiciary.  (American  State  Series.)  Century. 
$1.25. 

Bassett  (J.  S.).  The  Federalist  System.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Harp- 
ers.    $2.00. 

Bourne  (E.  G.).  Spain  in  America.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Harpers. 
$2.00. 

Bradford  (William).  History  of  Plymouth  Plantation.  (Original  Narrative 
Series.)     Scribner.     $3.00. 

Brown  (W.  G.).     Andrew  Jackson.    Houghton.    $.50. 

Browne  (W.H.).  Maryland.  (American  Commonwealth  Series.)  Houghton. 
$1.50. 

Bruce  (Philip  A.).  Social  Life  of  Virginia  in  Seventeenth  Century.  (Rich- 
mond).   $1.50. 

Bryce  (James).    The  American  Commonwealth.    2  vols.    Macmillan.    $4.00. 

Channing  (Edward).  The  Jeffersouian  System.  (American  Nation  Series.) 
Harpers.    $2.00. 

History  of  the  United  States.  (Three  volumes  ready,  through  the  Revo- 
lution.)    Macmillan.     $2.50  a  volume. 

772 


APPENDIX  II  773 

Cheyney  (E.P.).    European  Background  for  American  History.     (American 

Nation  Series.)    Harpers.     $2.00. 
Commons   (John  R.),  editor.    Documentary  History  of  American  Industrial 

Society.     10  vols.     A.  H.  Clark.     $50.00. 
editor.    Trade  Unionism  and  Labor  Problems.    Ginn.     $2.40. 

Cooley  (T.  M.).  Michigan.  (American  Commonwealth  Series.)  Houghton. 
$1.25. 

Dewey  (Davis  Rich) .  National  Problems.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Har- 
pers.   $2.00. 

Dodge  (T.  A.).    Bird's-eye  View  of  our  Civil  War.    Houghton.    $1.00. 

Dunn  (J.  P.).  Indiana.  (American  Commonwealth  Series.)  Houghton. 
$1.50. 

Dunning  (W.  A.).  Reconstruction.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Harpers. 
$2.00. 

Earle  (Alice  Morse) .    Customs  and  Fashions  in  Old  New  England.    Houghton. 

$1.50. 
Eggleston  (Edward).    Beginners  of  a  Nation.     Appleton.     $2.00. 
Eggleston  (G.  C).    A  Rebel's  Recollections.    Putnam.     $1.00. 

Farrand  (Livingston) .  Basis  of  American  History.  (American  Nation  Series.) 
Harpers.    $2.00. 

Farrand  (Max),  editor.  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787.  3  vols. 
Yale  University  Press.    $15.00. 

Fiske  (John).    Discovery  of  America.    2  vols.    Houghton.     $4.00. 

Old  Virginia  and  her  Neighbors.    2  vols.    Houghton.     $4.00. 

American  Revolution.    2  vols.    Houghton.    $4.00. 

The  Critical  Period.    Houghton.     $2.00. 

Ford  (H.  J.).    American  Politics.    Macmillan. 

Garrison  (G.  P.).  Westward  Extension.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Har- 
pers.   $2.00.  . 

Greene  (E.  B.).  Provincial  America.  (American  Nation  Series.)  Harpers. 
$2.00. 

Hart  (A.  B.) .  American  History  Told  by  Contemporaries.  4  vols.  Macmil- 
lan.    $6.00. 

Slavery  and  Abolition.     (American  Nation  Series.)     Harpers.     $2.00. 

The  Southern  South.     Appleton.     $1.50. 

Haworth  (P.  L.).  Reconstruction  and  Union.  (Home  University  Library.) 
Holt.     $.50. 

Hosmer  (James  K.).  Samuel  Adams.  (American  Statesman  Series.) 
Houghton.     $1.50. 


774  APPENDIX  II 

Howard  (G.  E.).    Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution.     (American  Nation  Series.) 
Harpers.     $2.00. 

Howe  (P.  C).    The  City  the  Hope  of  Democracy.     Scribners.     $1.50. 

Lee   (Robert  E.).    Recollections  and    Letters   of   General    Robert    E.    Lee. 
Doubleday.    $2.50. 

Lodge  (Henry  Cabot).    George  Washington.     (American  Statesman  Series.) 

2  vols.    Houghton.    $3.00. 
Daniel  Webster.     (American  Statesman  Series.)     Houghton.    $1.50. 

McDonald  (William).    Select  Documents  illustrative  of  the  History  of   the 

United  States,  1776-1861.    Macmillan.     $1.50. 
Jacksonian  Democracy.     (American  Nation  Series.)     Harpers.    $2.00. 

McLaughlin  (Andrew  C .) .    Confederation  and  Constit ution .    (American  Nation 
Series.)     Harpers.     $2.00. 

Morse    (J.    Torrey,   Jr.).      John    Adams.       (American    Statesman    Series.) 

Houghton.     $1.50. 

John  Quincy  Adams.     (American  Statesman  Series.)     Houghton.    $1.50. 

Abraham  Lincoln.     (American  Statesman  Series.)     2  vols.    Houghton. 

$3.00. 

Munroe  (William  B.).    Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall.    Appleton.    $1.50. 

Page  (Thomas  Nelson).    The  Old  South.    Scribner.    $1.25. 

Parkman  (Francis).    Half-Century  of  Conflict.    2  vols.    Little,  Brown,  &  Co. 
$3.00. 

Montcalm  and  Wolfe.    2  vols.    Little,  Brown,  &  Co.    $3.00. 

Conspiracy  of  Pontiac.    Dutton.    2  vols.    Each  $.35. 

Paxson  (F.  L.).    The  Civil  War  (1854-1865).     (Home  University  Library.) 
Holt.    $.50. 

Price  (Overton).    The  Land  We  Live  In  ("Boys'  Book  of  Conservation"). 
Small,  Maynard  &  Co.    $1.50. 

Rhodes  (J.  P.).    History  of  the  United  States  after  1850.    7  vols.    Macmillan. 

$17.50. 

Ripley  (W.  Z.).    Railway  Problems.    Ginn.    $2.25. 

Roosevelt    (Theodore).      Thomas   Benton.      (American   Statesman   Series.) 
Houghton.    $1.50. 

Gouverneur  Morris.     (American  Statesman  Series.)     Houghton.     $1.50. 

Winning  of  the  West.    6  vols.    Putnam.     $3.00. 

Schouler  (James).    Thomas  Jefferson.     (Makers  of  America  Series.)    Dodd. 
$1.00. 

Schurz    (Carl) .      Henry  Clay.      (American   Statesman   Series.)      Houghton. 
$1.50. 


APPENDIX  II  775 

Shaler  (N.  S.).    Kentucky.     (American  Commonwealth  Series.)    Houghton. 

$1.50. 
Sparks  (E.E.).    National  Development.    (American  Nation  Series.)    Harpers. 

$2.00. 
Spring   (L.  W.).    Kansas.    (American  Commonwealth  Series.)     Houghton. 

$1.50. 
Steiner  (E.  A.) .    On  the  Trail  of  the  Emigrant.    Revell.     $1.50. 
Straus  (O.  S.).    Roger  Williams.     (Makers  of  America  Series.)    Century. 

$1.00. 
Tarbell  (Ida  M.) .    History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company.    2  vols.    Macmillan. 

$5.00. 
Thwaites  (R.  G.).    France  in  America.     (American  Nation  Series.)    Harpers. 

$2.00. 
Tocqueville  (Alexis  de).    Democracy  in  America.    Barnes.    $2.50. 
Turner   (Frederic  J.).    Rise  of  the  New  West.     (American  Nation  Series.) 

Harpers.    $2.00. 
Twichell  (John).    John  Winthrop.     (Makers  of  America  Series.)     Century. 

$1.00. 
Von    Hoist    (H.   E.).     John    C.    Calhoun.      (American    Statesman   Series.) 

Houghton.    $1.50. 
Walker  (Francis  A.) .    Making  of  the  Nation.    Scribner.    $1.00. 
Washington  (Booker  T.).    Story  of  the  Negro.    2  vols.    Doubleday.    $3.00. 
West  (W.  M.),  editor.    Source  Book  in  American  History,  to  1789.     Allyn  and 

Bacon.    $1.50. 
Wilcox  (DelosF.).   The  American  City :  a  Problem  in  Democracy.   Macmillan. 

$1.50. 
Wilson  (Woodrow).    Congressional  Government.    Houghton.    $1.25. 

Division  and  Reunion.    Longmans.    $1.25. 

Winthrop  (John).    History  of  New  England.     (Original  Narrative  Series.) 

2  vols.    Scribner.    $6.00. 
Woodburn  (J.  A.),  editor.    Lecky's  American  Revolution.    Appleton.    $1.00. 
Zeublin  (Charles) .    American  Municipal  Progress.    Macmillan.    $1.50. 

ILLUSTRATIVE    FICTION 

Austin  (Jane  G.).    Standish  of  Standish.    Houghton.    $1.25. 
Avary  (M.  L.).    A  Virginia  Girl  in  the  Civil  War.     Appleton.     $1.25. 
Eggleston  and  Seelye.    Pocahontas.    Dodd.    $1.25. 
Foote  (Mary  Hallock).    Cceur  d'Alene.    Houghton.    $1.25. 


776  APPENDIX  II 

Johnston  (Mary).    To  Have  and  to  Hold.    Houghton.    $1.50. 
Prisoners  of  Hope.     Houghton.     $1.50. 

Kingsley  (Charles) .    Westwood  Ho.     (Everyman's  Library.)    Dutton.    $.35. 

Larcom  (Lucy).    A  New  England  Girlhood.    Houghton.    $.60. 

Norris  (Frank).    The  Octopus.    Grosset.    $.75. 
The  Pit.    Grosset.    $.50. 

Page  (T.N.) .    Red  Rock.    Scribner.    $1.50. 
Among  the  Camps.    Scribner.    $1.50. 

Stimson  (F.J.).    King  Noanett.    Scribner.    $1.00. 

White  (Stewart  Edward).     The  Rive rm an.    Doubleday.    $1.35. 
The  Rules  of  the  Game.    Doubleday.    $1.40. 

White  (William  Allen) .    A  Certain  Rich  Man.    Macmillan.    $1.50. 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Abolitionists.    See  Slavery. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  and  Eng- 
land, regarding  the  Alabama, 
379. 

Adams,  John,  on  Otis'  speech,  129; 
on  causes  of  Revolution,  133,  note ; 
defends  British  soldiers  after 
Boston  Massacre,  139,  note ;  on  Con- 
tinental Congress,  141 ;  on  July  2, 
1776,  150;  and  State  constitutions, 
153,  note ;  and  treaty  of  1763,  162 ; 
on  States  and  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, 187  (Exercise)  ;  and  peace 
negotiations,  162;  Vice  President, 
212 ;  affection  for  monarchic  forms, 
213  and  note;  President,  227;  on 
origin  of  caucus,  227;  on  party 
government,  228,  note ;  French 
troubles,  234,  235;  Fries  Rebellion, 
235;  defeated  for  reelection,  239; 
"midnight  judges,"  240;  and  civil 
service,  255,  note;  opposes  man- 
hood suffrage,  299. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  and  claims 
for  Oregon,  276;  and  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, 277;  President.  281;  "Old 
Man  Eloquent,"  the  "  right  of 
petition,"  337. 

Adams,  Samuel,  and  town  meeting 
and  committees  of  correspondence, 
140;  on  the  Constitution,  211. 

Addison,  Justice,  denunciation  of 
democracy,  256. 

Admistrations,  1877-1913  (table 
of),  414. 

Agassiz,  295. 

Agriculture,  deficient  in  French 
colonies,  14  a;  in  English  colo- 
nies, 124;  about  1800,  251  b ; 
and  inventions,  298,  and  transpor- 
tation, 175,  273,  298,  363. 

Aguinaldo,  439. 


Alabama  claims,  379.  See  Arbitra- 
tion. 

Alaska,  393  a,  436. 

Alden,  John,  54. 

Algonkins,  5. 

Alien  and  Sedition  Acts,  236,  238. 

Altgeld,  Governor,  446  b. 

Amending-  clauses  in  constitu- 
tions, in  Penn's  charter  to  Penn- 
sylvania, 1701 ;  in  Revolutionary 
State  constitutions,  155 ;  in  Articles 
of  Confederation,  196;  in  Federal 
Constitution,  204,  close,  and  note, 
and  242. 

Amendments  to  Constitution, 
general  discussion,  242.  See  Bill 
of  Rights,  and  by  numbers,  and 
also  Amending  Clauses. 

American  Colonization  Society, 
330. 

American  Federation  of  Labor, 
445. 

Ames,  Fisher,  on  Democracy,  229. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  93  a,  100. 

Angel,  James  B.,  on  the  South  in 
1850,  334,  note. 

Annapolis  Convention,  199. 

Antietam,  374. 

Antifederalists,  name,  210,  note. 

Anti-Masonic  Party,  310. 

Anti-rent  riots  in  New  York,  322  a. 

Anti-trust  Act  (The  Sherman) ,  410 ; 
amended  by  Supreme  Court,  ib. 

Appalachians,  effect  on  early  settle- 
ment, 4  b. 

Appeals  (from  colonial  courts  to 
England),  99,  101,  109,  and  note. 

Appellate  jurisdiction,  explained, 
79;  in  Massachusetts  colony,  ib. 
(see  Appeals  to  England)  ;  of  Su- 
preme Court,  207,  217  c  ;  upheld  by 
court,  280 ;  attempt  to  repeal,  280  b. 


Ill 


778 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Arbitration,  in  Jay  Treaty,  232;  in 
Pinckney  Treaty,  231,  note; 
Alabama  claims,  393  b ;  Vancouver 
Straits,  ib.,  note;  Venezuela,  433; 
proposals  for  general  arbitration 
treaties,  433. 

Archibald  (Justice),  impeachment, 
256,  note. 

Arizona,  and  the  recall,  405,  463. 

Arthur,  Chester  A.,  and  civil  serv- 
ice reform,  418. 

Articles  of  Confederation,  179, 
186,  187,  188,  189,  190,  191,  192; 
defects,  193,  194,  195,  196,  197,  198; 
attempts  to  amend,  196. 

Astoria,  262. 

Attainder,  bill  of,  159,  note. 

Audubon,  295. 

Australian  ballot,  460. 

Avalon,  Province  of,  and  charter, 
38. 

Bacon,  Francis,  17  c,  note. 

Bacon's  Laws  (in  Virginia),  105, 106. 

Bacon's  Rebellion,  93  c,  104. 

Ballinger,  Richard,  456. 

Ballot,  use  of  in  London  Company  in 
England,  32;  in  early  Massa- 
chusetts, 63  and  note ;  adopted  by 
law  in  Massachusetts,  66  a;  de- 
velopment, 77;  adopted  for  local 
elections  in  the  colony,  77 ;  its  two 
democratic  purposes,  77.  See 
Australian  ballot. 

Baltimore.    See  Calvert. 

Baptists,  in  New  England,  121  c. 

Benton,  Thomas,  on  need  of  West- 
ern influence  in  the  government,  276. 

Berger,  Victor,  452. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  34,  36,  37, 
103-105;  on  schools,  122. 

Bicameral  legislatures,  demanded 
in  Maryland  colony,  41;  evolution 
in  Massachusetts,  66-69;  "then 
and  now,"  70;  in  Revolutionary 
States,  153. 

"Big-  Business,"  407  ff . ;  immoral 
methods,  407 ;  consolidation,  408 ; 
control  of  news  agencies,  412;  ex- 
tent and  danger,  ib. ;  and  campaign 


funds,  413,  420;  and  tariff  bills, 
422,  423,  424,  458;  and  panic  of 
1907, 454,  and  Senator  Lorimer,  468. 
See  Trusts,  and  individual  trusts 
by  name. 

Bill  of  Rights,  the  (first  ten  amend- 
ments)^^. 

Bills  of  Rights  (State),  in  First 
Virginia  Constitution,  149;  in 
other  Revolutionary  constitutions, 
153;  in  Northwest  Ordinance,  182; 
wanting  in  the  Constitution,  210; 
supplied  by  first  ten  amendments, 
216. 

Black  Belt,  the  (after  1815),  272. 

Black  Hawk  War,  308,  note. 

Blackstone,  William,  45. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  attempts  for 
presidential  nomination,  389,  419; 
Credit  Mobilier  scandal,  389,  note; 
and  the  tariff,  420;  "  reciprocity," 
422 ;  Secretary  of  State,  431 ;  Pan- 
American  Congress,  ib. 

Blockade,  discussed,  231  c  and  note; 
in  European  wars,  1793-1815,  ib. ; 
in  Civil  War,  374. 

Blue  Laws,  in  early  Virginia,  26, 
29;  in  colonies  in  general,  120.  — > 

Board  of  Trade  (English),  95  and 
note ;  attempts  to  strengthen  royal 
control  over  colonies,  117. 

Body  of  Liberties,  the,  81. 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  makes  peace 
with  America,  234;  forces  all 
"Louisiana"  on  American  nego- 
tiators, 259;  decrees  as  to  com- 
merce, 266. 

Boone,  Daniel,  Scotch  Irish,  112;  in 
Kentucky,  168-170. 

"Boss"  (in  politics),  325,  326.  See 
"Big  Business." 

Boston,  founded,  60,  note;  first 
town  school,  123;  "  tea  party,  "  141. 

"  Boston  Massacre,"  139. 

Bowdoin,  Governor,  111,  note. 

Bradford,  William,  historian  of 
Plymouth,  47  and  note,  48-52,  55; 
Governor,  52,  53 ;  Plymouth  charter 
of  1630,  55;  on  Roger  Williams, 
84  and  note. 


r. 


INDEX 

References  are  to  sections 


779 


Brewster,  William,  47,  49. 

Bristow,  Benjamin  H.,  389. 

Brooke,  Lord,  on  religious  freedom, 
84. 

Brook  Farm,  297. 

Brown,  John,  351,  356. 

Brown  University,  122,  note. 

Bryan,  William  J.,  champion  of  the 
people,  430  and  passim;  nominated 
for  presidency,  430,  435,  455;  in 
Democratic  Convention  of  1912,  458. 

Bryant,  William  Cullen,  295. 

Bryce,  James,  on  amendment  of 
American  Constitution  by  stretch- 
ing it,  204,  note. 

Buchanan,  James,  "  Ostend  Mani- 
festo," 342;  presidency,  352  ff . ; 
veto  of  homestead  bill,  307;  mes- 
sage on  secession,  372;  supports 
the  Union  when  out  of  office,  372. 

Bull  Run,  Battle  of,  374. 

Bureau  of  Corporations,  411. 

Burgoyne's  Invasion,  158. 

Burke,  Edmund,  on  colonies  and 
the  British  empire,  135. 

Burke,  William,  advises  return  of 
Canada  to  France,  127. 

Burnet  (English  Governor),  quarrel 
with  Massachusetts  over  fixed 
salary,  117  and  note. 

Burr,  Aaron,  239,  241. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  377. 

Cabinet,  the,  evolution  and  history, 
215. 

Cabot,  George,  distrust  of  de- 
mocracy, 229. 

Cahokia,  162. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  a  "  Warhawk," 
267 ;  urges  internal  improvements 
(1816)  on  basis  of  "general  wel- 
fare" clause,  278;  protectionist 
in  1816,  279 ;  theory  of  nullification 
(against  protection),  305;  Com- 
promise of  1833,  307 ;  and  theory 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  344; 
and  Compromise  of  1850,  347. 

California,  acquired,  341;  Spanish 
civilization  in,  344;  discovery  of 
gold,  ib.,  and  the  vigilantes,  346;  a 


"free  State,"  347 ;  and  the  Southern 
Pacific,  411,  459;  and  the  recall, 
463. 

California  vs.  Southern  Pacific 
(Case  of),  411. 

Calvert,  Cecelius  (Second  Lord 
Baltimore) ,  39. 

Calvert,  George  (Lord  Baltimore), 
2,38. 

Calvin,  John,  denounces  democracy, 
62;  political  teacher  of  the  Puri- 
tans, ib. 

Cambridge  Agreement,  the,  59. 

Campaign  funds,  and  "  big  busi- 
ness," 413,  462;  and  office  holders, 
416,  418 ;  and  Garfield,  417,  note ; 
publicity  of,  462. 

Canning,  George,  and  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, 277. 

Cannon,  Joseph,  328,  note. 

Carolinas,  the,  founded,  94,  117,  124. 

Carpet-baggers,  387,  388. 

Carver,  John,  51,  53. 

Caucus,  origin,  227;  congressional, 
for  nomination  of  presidents,  227, 
281 ;  weak  points,  310  and  note ; 
and  control  of  committees  and  leg- 
islation, 328  and  note.  See  Nomi- 
nations. 

11  Cavalier  Assembly,"  the,  103. 

Cavaliers,  the,  102,  103. 

Champlain,  10-12. 

Charming,  Edward  (quoted),  on 
War  of  1812,  266,  note ;  on  life  ten- 
ure of  judiciary,  207 ;  on  impeach- 
ment of  Justice  Chase,  256. 

Channing,  William  Ellery,  and 
Unitarianism,  295;  abolitionist, 
335;  "  higher  law,"  347,  note. 

Charles  I,  34,  38,  39,  45,  57. 

Charles  II,  95,  97-99. 

Charters,  colonial,  20 ;  Raleigh's,  21 ; 
Virginia,  22,  25,  26,  32;  Maryland 
(and  Avalon  and  others),  31,  32; 
New  England  Council,  45;  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  57;  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut,  98;  Province  of 
Massachusetts,  101 ;  Pennsylvania, 
109,  110.  See  special  colonies  by 
name  for  proprietary  grants. 


780 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Charter  colonies  (value  of  the  dis- 
tinction), 117.  , 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  why  an  abolition- 
ist, 338;  secretary  of  the  treasury, 
376;  Chief  Justice,  on  Legal  Ten- 
der Act,  390;  on  "packing"  of 
Supreme  Court,  ib. 

Chase,  Samuel  (Justice  of  Supreme 
Court),  on  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  State  sovereignty, 
187,  note;  partisan  condemnation 
of  democracy,  256  and  note;  fail- 
ure of  impeachment,  256. 

Chattanooga,  battle  of,  374. 

"Checks  and  balances,"  70;  in 
constitution,  207  b. 

Cherokees,  5  b. 

Child  labor,  in  1830,  288 ;  regulation 
after  1870,  450  e;  unregulated  in 
the  South,  ib.,  and  note. 

Children's  Bureau,  450. 

China,  and  the  United  States,  440. 

Chisholm  vs.  Georgia,  218. 

Cities,  growth  of.     See  Population. 

Civil  Service,  under  Washington 
and  Adams,  255;  Jefferson  and, 
255;  J.  Q.  Adams,  302;  Crawford's 
four-year  bill,  ib. ;  spoils  system, 
302,  325;  under  Lincoln,  371;  re- 
form, 389,  415,  417,  418,  421. 

Civil  War,  the  (see  Slavery  and 
State  Sovereignty  for  causes), 
secession  of  South  Carolina  and 
first  tier  of  slave  states,  368 ;  inde- 
cision at  North,  370;  call  to  arms 
and  national  uprising,  372;  seces- 
sion of  second  tier  of  Slave  States, 
372;  Border  States  saved,  ib. ; 
campaigns,  374 ;  blockade,  ib. ; 
forces,  367,  375;  Southern  heroism, 
375 ;  prisoners  in,  375  and  note ; 
draft,  ib. ;  Northern  "  prosperity  " 
in,  375;  war  finance,  376;  cost  falls 
on  the  poor,  ib.;  slavery  in,  377; 
foreign  relations  and,  378;  and 
personal  liberty  at  the  North,  379 ; 
cost,  380 ;  results,  380. 

Clark,  Champ,  328,  note. 

Clark,  George  Rogers,  162,  175, 
176. 


Clay,  Henry,  a  "Warhawk,"  267, 
268;  protectionist,  279;  nominee 
for  presidency,  281 ;  duel  with 
Randolph,  ib.,  note;  and  Missouri 
compromise,  283 ;  and  compromise 
of  1833,  307 ;  and  Jackson  and  the 
bank,  309;  and  public  domain, 
316;  speaker,  328;  and  slavery, 
330,  note,  and  ff. ;  compromise  of 
1850,  347. 

"  Clermont,"  the,  264. 

Cleveland,  Grover,  election  to 
presidency,  419;  and  civil  service, 
ib. ;  commits  party  to  tariff  reform, 
420  ff. ;  and  private  pension  bills, 
422 ,  and  veto  power,  422  and  note ; 
second  administration  423  ff. ;  and 
Wilson  tariff,  423 ;  and  bond  issues, 
428;  alienates  radicals,  430;  and 
Hawaii,  432;  and  Venezuelan  arbi- 
tration, 433;  and  Pullman  strike, 
446  6. 

Clinton,  DeWitt,  272  c. 

"  Closed  shop,"  448. 

Coal  strike  (1902),  446  c. 

Cohens  vs.  Virginia,  280  b. 

Colonial  Assemblies  (see  sepa- 
rate colonies),  gains  in  1690-1760, 
119. 

Colonial  history,  to  1690  (see  Vir- 
ginia, New  England,  and  separate 
colonies  for  1690-1760),  115-119. 

Colonial  industries,  124. 

"Colonialism,"  230. 

Columbia  River,  discovery,  262. 

Columbus,  Christopher,  9,  17. 

Committees  of  Correspondence 
(Revolutionary) ,  140. 

Commerce,  colonial,  124;  and  navi- 
gation acts  (which  see)  ;  in  Euro- 
pean wars  of  1793  ff .,  231 ;  in  1800, 
247,  248;  in  1830,  298,  362,  363, 
364. 

Commission  government,  for 
cities,  466. 

Committee  of  the  Whole,  ex- 
plained, 202,  note. 

Common  Law,  the,  in  colonial  char- 
ters, 22  a ;  restored  in  Virginia  by 
Yeardley,  28  6 ;  in  colonial  usage, 


INDEX 


781 


References  are  to  sections 


119 ;  in  Revolutionary  State  consti- 
tutions, 153;  and  labor  organiza- 
tions in  the  thirties,  289 ;  and  Work- 
ingmen's  Compensation  Acts,  450  g. 

Commons,  John  R.,  quoted,  294. 

Commonwealth  (the  English),  ef- 
fect on  colonies,  37. 

Communication,  means  of,  colonial, 
124;  in  1800,  247  (see  Railroad, 
Steamboat,  Telegraph) ;  in  the  fif- 
ties, 363,  ,364. 

Communism,  attempts  at,  297.  Not 
in  early  Virginia  or  Plymouth,  23, 
52. 

Compromises,  the  Great,  in  Con- 
stitution, 203,  205,  206;  of  1820, 
283;  of  1833,  307;  of  1850,  347. 

Conant,  Roger,  56,  57. 

Concord,  battle  of,  144. 

Congregationalism,  disestablished 
in  New  England,  295,  299. 

Congressional  caucus.  See  Cau- 
cus. 

Congressional  committees,  328. 
See  Speaker. 

Connecticut,  democracy,  85,  87; 
Fundamental  Orders,  88;  and  the- 
ocracy, 89;  in  New  England  Fed- 
eration, 90-92;  charter  of  1662,  98 ; 
and  royal  control  of  militia,  117; 
Congregationalism  disestablished , 
299. 

Connecticut  Compromise,  the,  203. 

"  Conservation,"  454. 

"  Constellation,"  the,  and  the  Ven- 
geance, 234. 

Constitution,  the  Federal,  new 
type  of  government,  198,  201 ;  the 
making  (see  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion) ,  compromises  in  (which  see) ; 
enumerated  powers,  203 ;  judiciary, 
207 ;  electoral  college,  208 ;  undem- 
ocratic features,  202,  207  c;  fran- 
chise in,  209 ;  ratification,  210,  211 ; 
"We,  the  people,"  211;  and  first 
elections,  212;  and  the  Cabinet, 
215;  and  the  Territories,  260  and 
passim,;  and  slavery  (which  see). 
See  Amendments.  Document  in 
Appendix. 


Continental  Congress,  first,  141; 
second,  144  ff . ;  weakness,  157, 188- 
190;  and  papter  money,  160;  ex- 
pires, 212,  note. 

Continental  currency.  See  Paper 
money. 

Continental  debt,  189,  219,  220. 

Contraband  of  War,  231  c  and  note. 

"  Contrabands,"  377. 

"  Contract,"  Inviolability  of,  and 
Dartmouth  College  case,  207  and 
note. 

"Convention"  of  1818,  with  Eng- 
land, 274. 

Conway  Cabal,  158. 

Cooley,  Justice,  on  State  govern- 
ments, 204,  note. 

Cooper,  James  Fenimore,  295. 

"  Copperheads,"  379. 

Corporate  colony,  Plymouth,  52; 
Massachusetts,  56,  64;  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut,  98. 

Corrupt  Practices  Acts,  462. 

Cotton,  before  and  after  the  cotton 
gin,  248;  in  Civil  War,  374. 

Cotton  gin,  248. 

Cotton,  John,  denounces  democracy, 
62, 63 ;  presents  undesirable  laws,  81. 

County,  the,  beginnings  of  in  Massa- 
chusetts, 79 ;  more  fundamental  in 
Virginia,  103,  104.  See  Local 
Government. 

Court  of  Appeals  (Federal),  410, 
note. 

Court  of  Claims  (State) ,  218. 

Court  of  Commerce,  403. 

Courts.     See  Judiciary. 

Cowpens,  battle  of,  159. 

Coxey's  "Army,"  430,  446a. 

Cradock,  Mathew,  59,  61. 

Crawford,  W.  H.,  302. 

"  Credit  Mobilier,"  389. 

Crisis  (financial) .    See  Panic. 

Cuba,  342,  434,  437. 

Cumberland  settlements,  172. 

Cutler,  Manesseh,  182. 

Dale,  Sir  Thomas,  in  Virginia,  26; 
enthusiasm  for  the  colony,  17  a, 
note,  26,  note. 


782 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Dale's  Code,  26. 

Dana,  Chief  Justice  of  Massachusetts, 
partisan  denunciation  of  democ- 
racy, 256. 

Dartmouth  College  Case,  208,  288. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  112,  note,  272,  368, 
369. 

DeBow's  Review,  quoted  on  Nor- 
thern "  labor  slavery,"  334. 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
147-150 ;  and  the  States,  187. 

Delaware,  94,  109. 

Democracy,  at  Plymouth,  inciden- 
tal, 54;  distrusted  by  Puritan 
leaders,  62,  63;  growth  in  the 
Revolution,  137  c;  and  Revolu- 
tionary State  constitutions,  153- 
155;  distrusted  in  Philadelphia 
Convention  of  1787,  200  ff.,  esp., 
205,  207  c,  208,  209 ;  struggle  for  in 
Washington's  administration,  213 
Federalist  fear  of,  after  1800,  229 
aided  by  growth  of  the  West,  244 
and  Jeffersonian  Republicanism, 
252,  254 ;  denounced  by  Federalist 
courts,  256,  note;  and  the  New 
West  of  1830,  286 ;  and  the  early 
labor  movement  of  the  thirties, 
289  ff. ;  and  the  intellectual  ferment 
of  the  thirties,  295 ;  extension  of 
franchise  after  1820,  299;  State 
movements  about  1840,  322;  new 
political  machinery  in  the  Jackson 
era,  323-328 ;  and  Special  Privilege, 
394-470 ;  better  political  machinery 
as  a  means,  459-469. 

Democratic  party,  origin,  310; 
unit  rule,  323.     See  passim. 

Dennie's  Portfolio,  denounces  de- 
mocracy, 229. 

Departments  of  State,  Treasury, 
etc.,  215  and  note. 

Dewey,  Admiral  George,  at  Ma- 
nila, 434. 

Dickinson,  John,  opposes  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  150;  in 
Philadelphia  Convention  distrusts 
democracy,  200;  desires  limita- 
tion of  franchise  to  freeholders, 
209. 


Direct  legislation,  464.  See  Refer- 
endum. 

Direct  Primaries,  324,  468. 

Disarmament  on  the  Lakes,  by 
Convention  of  1817,  274. 

"Distribution  of  the  Surplus"  in 
1835,  312. 

Domestic  system  of  manufac- 
tures, 248. 

Dorchester,  60,  note ;  initiates  town 
government,  71;  migration  to  Con- 
necticut, 87;  code  of  school  law, 
123,  note. 

Dorchester  Company,  colony  at 
Cape  Ann,  56;  reorganized  as 
Massachusetts  Bay  Company,  57. 

Dorr,  Thomas  Wilson,  martyr  to 
democracy,  322  6. 

Doug-las,  Stephen  A.,  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  350;  debates  with 
Lincoln:  forced  to  deny  principle 
of  Dred  Scott  decision,  355 ;  saves 
Kansas  from  pro-slavery  fraud, 
357 ;  candidate  for  presidency,  358, 
360;  supports  the  government  in 
1861,  372. 

Draft  riots  in  Civil  War,  375. 

Drake,  Francis,  17,  18,  21. 

Dred  Scott  Case,  353-357. 

Ducking-  Stool,  120. 

Dunmore,  Governor  of  Virginia,  145. 

Dutch  settlements,  90,  92, 107,  108. 

D wight,  Theodore,  denounces  de- 
mocracy, 229. 

East  Florida,  162,  note,  and  map. 

Education,  in  the  colonies,  122,  123; 
in  1800,  250;  and  child  labor  in 
first  half  of  19th  century,  288; 
"free  schools "  vs.  pauper  schools, 
and  labor  organizations,  293;  ad- 
vance in  second  third  of  19th 
century,  295. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  121c. 

Eight-hour  day,  450  b. 

Elections.  See  Presidential  elec- 
tions. 

Electoral  Commission  of  1877, 
389. 

Eleventh  Amendment,  218. 


INDEX 


783 


References  are  to  sections 


Ellsworth,  Oliver,  203,  204,  note. 

Emancipation.    See  Slavery. 

Emancipation  Proclamation,  377. 

Embargo  of  1807,  206;  and  New 
England  nullification  movement, 
269. 

Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  295,  296, 
297. 

Endicott,  John,  57,  80,  84. 

England,  colonial  policy :  contrasted 
with  France,  16;  motives,  17,  18; 
cost,  19;  the  crown  and,  20;  char- 
ters, 20;  rights  of  colonists,  22c  ; 
first  colonial  department,  93,  95; 
commercial  policy,  96 ;  attempts  at 
colonial  consolidation,  100,  101; 
English  colonists  become  colonial 
Americans,  113;  royal  governors, 
118 ;  and  separation  from  America, 
see  Revolution ;  and  foreign  slave 
trade,  331 ;  and  the  Civil  War,  378, 
and  note;  Venezuela  arbitration, 
433 ;  friendly  feeling  for  America, 
433. 

Entail,  124,  note;  abolished  in  Vir- 
ginia, 252. 

Episcopal  Church,  44,  100,  121c; 
and  the  Revolution,  133. 

"  Era  of  Good  Feeling,"  281. 

Ericsson,  John,  374. 

Erie  Canal,  272  c. 

Erie,  Lake,  exclusion  of  French  ex- 
plorers from,  13  d. 

Evans,  Frederick  W.,  289. 

Evans,  George  Henry,  289. 

Evans,  Oliver,  264. 

Everett,  Edward,  295. 

Expansion.    See  Territorial  growth. 

Factory  Acts,  450/. 

Fall  Line,  the,  112. 

Faneuil,  Peter,  111,  note. 

Fanning,  Edward,  and  the  Regu- 
lators, 137,  note. 

Farm  tools  of  1800,  249. 

Farmers'  Alliance,  427. 

Federal  government,  types  of, 
197,  198. 

Federalist  party  of  1787-1789, 
210,  212. 


Federalist  party  of  1792  and 
after,  226  ff . ;  distrust  of  democ- 
racy, 229;  revived  by  "war  with 
France,"  234;  and  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts,  236;  overthrow, 
238;  desperate  methods  in  1800, 
239;  attempts  on  Judiciary  and 
presidency,  240-241 ;  opposed  to 
Louisiana  Purchase,  260;  revived 
by  embargo  of  1807,  266 ;  in  1812, 
267 ;  in  War  of  1812,  268-270 ;  dis- 
appearance, 270,  281. 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  385. 

Filibustering  (in  legislative  bodies), 
328. 

Fisheries,  in  early  colonial  history, 
21,  56;  expected  source  of  wealth 
in  New  England,  52;  and  treaty  of 
1783,  162;  after  War  of  1812,  275. 

Fiske,  James,  389. 

Fitch,  John,  264. 

Flatboat  trade,  175,  263,  272  c. 

Florida,  boundary  fixed  by  Pinckney 
treaty,  233. 

Foote  Resolution,  the,  305,  369. 
See  Slavery. 

Foreign  slave  trade,  prohibited  in 
constitution  of  Southern  Con- 
federacy, 369. 

Fourteenth  Amendment,  385;  in 
practice,  391 ;  converted  into  shield 
for  "  big  business,"  411. 

Fox,  Charles,  136,  162. 

France,  in  America,  10, 11, 12,  13, 14, 
15,  16;  contrast  with  English 
colonial  system,  114 ;  cedes  Canada, 
114;  and  Louisiana  to  Spain,  114; 
ally  of  America  in  Revolution, 
158;  desires  to  limit  American 
territory  at  the  peace,  162; 
troubles  of  1792-1815,  230  ff . ; 
"war"  of  1797,  234;  secures 
Louisiana  again,  259;  cedes  to 
America,  ib.  ;  relations  with 
America  from  1800  to  1812,  266 ;  in 
Civil  War,  378 ;  and  Mexico,  393. 

Franchise,  colonial:  Virginia,  103 
and  note,  106,  107;  Massachusetts, 
65;  Connecticut,  88.  In  early 
State     constitutions,     gradations, 


784 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


154;  in  Vermont,  154,  note;  in 
Watauga,  167;  in  Cumberland 
settlements,  172;  in  Federal  Con- 
stitution, 209;  extension  after 
1790,  256;  after  1820,  299.  See 
Woman  Suffrage. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  on  English 
navigation  laws,  116 ;  and  Univer- 
sity of  Pennsylvania,  122,  note  ; 
subscription  library,  122;  colonial 
.agent,  130;  and  theory  of  "per- 
sonal" union  with  England,  134; 
on  the  Stamp  Act,  138  and  note; 
rejects  idea  of  independence  in 
March  of  1775,  146;  befriends 
Thomas  Paine,  146,  note ;  minister 
to  France,  158 ;  in  negotiations  for 
peace,  162;  in  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention, 200. 

Freedman's  Bureau,  381,  385. 

Free  land,  251  a  ;  disappearance, 
one  cause  of  social  unrest, 
444  a. 

Free  press,  denied  in  early  Massa- 
chusetts, 68;  vindicated  in  the 
Zenger  case  in  colonial  New  York, 
119.  See  Alien  and  Sedition 
Acts. 

"Free  Silver,"  425;  the  "crime  of 
'73,"  425 ;  Bland  Act,  426  and  note ; 
and  the  Populists,  427;  Sherman 
Act,  428;  and  election  of  1896, 
430 ;  in  1900,  435 ;  question  disap- 
pears, 436. 

Free  Soil  Party,  the,  345. 

Free  speech,  threatened  by  recent 
police  methods,  435.  See  Alien 
and  Sedition  Laws. 

"Freeman,"  in  Maryland,  39  and 
note ;  in  Massachusetts,  62  ff. 

Freemont,  John  C,  352. 

French  Spoliation  Claims,  234, 
note. 

Friends,  Society  of.    See  Quakers. 

Fries'  Rebellion,  235. 

Frontenac,  15. 

Frontier,  accentuates  traits,  14;  the 
successive,  in  American  colonial 
history,  112,  185.    See  The  West. 

Fulton,  Robert,  264. 


Fundamental  Orders,  of  Connect- 
icut, 88. 

Fur  trade,  in  early  New  England, 
52,  56 ;  and  Astor,  248. 

Gadsen,  Christopher,  advocates  in- 
dependence, vainly,  in  February  of 
1776,  146. 

Gadsen  purchase,  the,  342. 

Gag  rules,  in  Congress,  337  b. 

Gage,  royal  governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts, gives  precedent  for 
anarchy,  142. 

Gallatin,  Albert,  252  and  note; 
civil  service  principles,  255  and 
note;  and  internal  improvements, 
265  and  note. 

Garfield,  James  A.,  election  to 
presidency,  416 ;  and  the  spoilsmen, 
417. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  335, 
336. 

Gaspee,  burning  of,  the  signal  for  in- 
tercolonial committees,  140. 

General  search  warrants,  129; 
Otis'  argument,  ib.;  in  Virginia 
bill  of  rights,  148,  149. 

"  General  welfare  "  clause  (in  the 
Constitution),  discussed,  204  a; 
used  even  by  Jeffevsonian  Republi- 
cans, 260  a,  note,  and  by  Calhoun 
in  1816,' 278. 

Genet,  French  agent,  230. 

Geography,  influence  on  early  colo- 
nial history,  2, 3,  4 ;  on  local  govern- 
ment, North  and  South,  75;  on 
later  colonial  history,  112,  165, 
note,  175;  and  National  History, 
245. 

George,  Henry,  and  the  Single  Tax, 
453 ;  and  the  Australian  ballot,  460. 

George  III,  136. 

Georgia,  founded,  111;  royal  prov- 
ince, 117 ;  and  States'  Rights,  218, 
282,  308. 

Georgia  vs.  Chisholm,  218. 

German  immigration,  in  colonial 
days,  111;  after  1848,  343,  note; 
saves  Missouri  to  the  Union 
372. 


INDEX 


785 


References  are  to  sections 


Germantown,  battle  of,  158. 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  distrust  of  democ- 
racy in  Philadelphia  Convention, 
202;  envoy  to  France,  234;  and 
Gerrymander,  327. 

Gerrymander,  327. 

Gettysburg,  battle  of,  374. 

Gilbert,  Humphrey,  21,  22. 

Gladstone,  on  American  Constitu- 
tion, 201 ;  on  Southern  Confederacy, 
378. 

Glavis,  Louis,  and  patriotic  a  in- 
subordination," 456  and  note. 

Gompers,  Samuel,  447. 

Gorges,  Sir  Perdinando,  57,  note, 
61. 

Gorges,  Robert,  45,  56,  note,  57, 
note. 

Gosnold,  Bartholomew,  18. 

Gould,  Jay,  and  the  stock  market, 
389. 

"Government  by  Injunction," 
447. 

Grangers,  political  party,  399. 

Grant,  U.  S.,  in  Civil  War,  374,  375; 
generous  terms  to  the  conquered, 
381 ;  chosen  President,  386 ;  re- 
elected, 389;  humiliation  of  second 
term,  ib.;  and  the  spoilsmen,  ib.; 
and  appointments  to  Supreme 
Court,  390;  attempts  at  "third 
term,"  416,  note. 

Gray,  Captain,  and  the  Columbia, 
262. 

Great  French  War,  the,  114;  in- 
fluence of  sea  power  in,  ib. 

Greeley,  Horace,  Scotch-Irish,  112, 
note ;  on  protective  tariffs,  320 ; 
and  secession,  in  1860,  370;  candi- 
date for  presidency,  389. 

Greenback  party,  392. 

Greenbacks,  376;  after  the  war,  392. 
See  Legal  tender  decisions. 

Grenville,  George,  and  American 
taxation,  130. 

Hadley,  Arthur  T.,  on  property 
privileges  in  the  Constitution,  207 
c,  394  (heading). 

Hakluyt,  quoted,  17  a  and  b. 


Hamilton,  Alexander,  New  York  a 
"  Sovereign  State,"  187  (exercise) ; 
on  new  type  of  Federal  govern- 
ment, 197;  efforts  for  Federal 
Convention,  199,  note;  writes 
Annapolis  call,  199;  disbelief  in 
democracy,  in  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention, 200  and  note;  small  in- 
fluence in  Convention,  203,  note; 
on  Federal  Judiciary,  207  c;  on 
limitation  of  franchise  to  free- 
holders, 209;  secures  ratification 
in  New  York,  210;  intrigues 
against  Adams,  212;  Secretary  of 
Treasury,  215;  denies  power  of 
Supreme  Court  to  summon  a 
"Sovereign  State,"  218;  financial 
plan,  219-222;  the  Bank  and  "im- 
plied powers,"  222;  constitutional 
results,  220;  as  seen  by  opponents, 
229  and  note ;  and  Jay  treaty,  231 ; 
defends  arbitration,  232;  in  army 
of  1797,  234;  proposes  political 
trick  to  Jay,  239  c;  discourages 
plan  to  elect  Burr  over  Jefferson, 
241;  significance  in  American  his- 
tory, 243. 

Hancock,  John,  poses  as  Shays' 
sympathizer,  192 ;  vetoes  "  revenue 
amendment,"  196,  note;  support 
for  Federal  Constitution  secured, 
210,  note. 

Hanna,  Mark,  Republican  campaign 
manager  and  representative  of 
"  big  business,"  430, 435. 

Harlan,  Justice,  great  dissenting 
opinions,  401,  410. 

Harrison,  Benjamin  F.,  and  civil 
service,  421 ;  and  Hawaii,  432. 

Harrison,  William  H.,  Tippecanoe, 
272  b ;  President,  319,  321. 

Hart,  A.  B.,  quoted,  on  "  Black  laws" 
of  Ohio,  332;  on  choice  of  antago- 
nists in  1812, 266,  note ;  andpassim. 

Hartford  Convention,  270. 

Harvard,  founded,  122, 123;  a  "  state 
university,"  123;  in  1800,  250. 

Harvey,  Sir  John,  governor  of 
Virginia,  34,  35. 

Hawaii,  432,  434,  438. 


786 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Hawthorne,  295,  297. 

Hay,  John,  Secretary  of  State,  and 
China,  440. 

Hayes,  R.  B.,  President,  389;  and 
civil  service,  415. 

Hayne,  R.  Y.,  debate  with  Webster, 
305. 

Henry,  Patrick,  Scotch-Irish,  112, 
note;  Stamp  Act  Resolutions,  138; 
and  religious  freedom,  149;  and 
bill  of  attainder,  159,  note  ;  "  I  am 
an  American,"  188;  opposes  Fed- 
eral Convention,  199;  and  ratifica- 
tion of  Constitution,  211;  "High 
Federalist,"  226. 

Hepburn  Act,  the,  402. 

Higginson,  Francis  (Puritan  minis- 
ter), 57,  60,  82,  note. 

Higginson,  Stephen,  suggests  rati- 
fication by  nine  States,  210,  note. 

Higginson,  Thomas  Wentworth, 
abolitionist,  348. 

"  High  cost  of  living  "  after  1890, 
424. 

Holmes,  Oliver  Wendell,  295, 
296. 

Holmes  vs.  "Walton,  207  b. 

Home  Rule,  for  cities,  465. 

Homestead  bill,  agitation  for,  367 ; 
Buchanan's  veto,  ib.;  law  of  1862, 
376 ;  abuses  under,  407.  See  Public 
Domain. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  apostle  of  democ- 
racy in  Connecticut,  85,  87;  leads 
migration  to  Connecticut,  87;  in- 
spires Fundamental  Orders,  88; 
and  "  Separatists,"  82,  note. 

Horseshoe  Bend,  battle  of,  2726. 

Huguenots,  forbidden  in  French 
America,  14  a;  immigration  to 
English  colonies,  111,  and  note ;  in 
Carolinas,  124. 

Hutchinson,  Ann,  84. 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  governor  of 
Massachusetts  colony,  138,  139, 
141. 

Illinois,    and   slavery,   332;    and   in- 
ternal improvements,  278. 
Illiteracy,  in  the  colonies,  122. 


Immigration,  from  1690  to  Revolu- 
tion, 111;  to  1815,  272a;  and  to 
1830,  ib.,  note;  to  Civil  War,  343; 
since  the  War,  404. 

Impeachment,  Justice  Pickering, 
256 ;  Justice  Chase,  ib. ;  Consti- 
tutional difficulties,  ib. ;  Justice 
Archibald,  256,  note ;  President 
Johnson,  386. 

"  Imperialism,"  435. 

Implied  powers,  204,  doctrine  de- 
veloped by  Hamilton,  222 ;  adopted 
by  Jeffersonian  Republicans  to  de- 
fend Louisiana  Purchase,  260 ; 
growth  of,  after  War  of  1812,  271  b 
ff. ;  extended  by  Supreme  Court, 
280,  especially  e. 

Impressment,  231,  266,  267,  268. 

Income  tax  (graduated),  in  Civil 
War,  376;  Act  accompanying 
Wilson  tariff,  424  and  note ;  voided 
by  Supreme  Court,  ib.  ;  Amend- 
ment for,  ib.,  note. 

Independent  Treasury,  314  and 
note. 

Independents.    See  Separatists. 

Indiana,  and  attempts  to  introduce 
slavery,  332. 

Indiana  Territory,  184. 

Indians,  classification,  5;  numbers, 
5,  note ;  bearing  on  English  settle- 
ment, 6 ;  influence  on  early  colonial 
industries,  8;  and  early  Virginia, 
31,  32;  and  Plymouth,  52;  King 
Philip's  War,  99;  Pontiac's  War, 
130,  note ;  and  the  Revolution,  159, 
note;  Lord  Dunmore's  War,  169; 
and  Western  settlement,  168-169, 
184;  and  War  of  1812,  and  subse- 
quent land  cessions,  272  b ;  and 
Georgia,  308;  later  Indian  Wars, 
308,  note.  See  Algonkins,  Iroquois, 
etc. 

Industrial  development,  early 
colonial,  7,  8,  23,  26,  28  a,  31,  52, 
104;  later  colonial,  124;  about 
1800,  246,  247,  248,  249,  251;  after 
War  of  1812,  272,  278,  279;  about 
1830,  285;  and  labor  movements, 
287-292;   and  invention,  298;   and 


INDEX 


787 


References  are  to  sections 


land  policy,  317,  318;  and  slavery, 
343 ;  about  1860,  362-367  ;  since  the 
Civil  War,  391-405,  406-413,  •  445- 
453. 

Industry  in  common,  in  early 
Virginia  (not  communism),  23  ff. ; 
in  Plymouth,  52. 

Ingalls,  Senator,  derides  civil  serv- 
vice  reform,  421. 

"  Initiative,"  see  Referendum. 

"  Insurgents,"  Republican,  in  Con- 
gress, in  1910,  329,  456. 

Intellectual  ferment  of  society, 
from  1830  to  1860,  295,  296. 

Intercolonial  wars,  114,  126^-197; 
English  and  American  troops  in, 
130  and  note. 

Internal  Improvements,  265,  272, 
278,  301. 

International  law,  230  and  note. 

Interstate  Commerce  Act,  399. 

Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 399,  401,  402,  403. 

Invention  (mechanical),  American 
talent  for,  251  c ;  early  history,  to 
1830,  298;  transforms  American 
life,  ib. 

"Invincible  Armada,"  the,  9. 

Ipswich,  resistance  to  Andros,  100. 

Irish  famine,  a  cause  of  immigration 
to  America,  272. 

Iron  manufactures,  colonial,  re- 
stricted by  English  laws,  116; 
about  1830,  273  and  note,  298  and 
note. 

Iroquois,  location  and  numbers,  5  c  ; 
hinders  French  empire  in  America, 
4,  6,  12,  13. 

Irving,  Washington,  295. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  Scotch-Irish, 
112,  note;  at  New  Orleans,  268;  at 
Horseshoe  Bend,  272;  candidate 
for  presidency,  281;  elected,  283; 
and  "  revolution  of  1828,"  284 ;  and 
Workingmen's  party,  290;  and 
Emerson,  295 ;  and  new  position  of 
the  presidency,  300;  "reign"  of, 
301  ff. ;  and  veto  power,  301 ;  and 
internal    improvements,   ib. ;    and 


nullification,  306-308;  and  the 
Bank,  309-311 ;  and  the  panic,  313. 

Jacksonian  Democracy,  and  Jef- 
fersonian,  300. 

James  I,  17,  22,  32  m,  34,  49. 

James  II,  100.  • 

Jamestown,  18-24;  a  "plantation 
colony,"  23. 

Jay,  John,  142, 146, 162, 187  (exercise) , 
232,  239  c. 

Jay,  treaty,  the,  234,  235. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  idea  of  inde- 
pendence in  September  of  '75,  146 ; 
plan  for  Virginia  constitution  and 
declaration  of  independence,  148; 
writes  Declaration  of  Independence, 
148,  149 ;  urges  referendum  on  con- 
stitutions, 152;  encourages  George 
Rogers  Clark  to  conquer  the  West, 
162,  note;  and  Ordinance  of  1884, 
181;  and  Survey  Ordinance,  183; 
criticizes  judiciary  as  "independ- 
ent of  the  nation,"  207  c;  on  titles 
and  Old  World  forms,  213;  Secre- 
tary of  State,  215 ;  and  the  Capital 
bargain,  220,  and  note;  not  an 
Antifederalist,  225;  and  the  Re- 
publican party,  226;  views  as  to 
monarchic  tendencies  of  opponents, 
226 ;  Vice  President,  227 ;  and  party 
feeling,  229;  and  Alien  and  Sedi- 
tion Laws,  237 ;  criticizes  judiciary, 
237,  241 ;  improves  the  plow,  249, 
note;  and  "Revolution  of  1800," 
252;  power  from  1800  to  1809,  252 
ff. ;  personality,  252 ;  early  reforms 
in  Virginia,  252;  on  Europe  and 
America,  ib. ;  political  principles, 
253;  Jeffersonian  simplicity,  254; 
economy,  254;  and  civil  service, 
255;  attempts  on  the  judiciary, 
256;  reelection,  258;  and  "third 
term"  principle,  258 ;„  and  the 
West,  259  and  note ;  Louisiana  Pur- 
chase, 259 ;  Constitutional  scruples, 
260;  and  exploration  of  Oregon, 
etc.,  262 ;  new  views  as  to  desirable 
centralization,  265;  weak  foreign 
policy,  266 ;  proposes  alliance  with 
England  to  check  Holy  Alliance  in 


788 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


America,  277,  note;  and  slavery, 
330,  333. 

Jeffersonian  Republicanism,  244, 
246-251;  modified  by  victory, 
258. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  President,  383; 
takes  up  Lincoln's  plan  for  recon- 
struction, ib. ;  conflict  with  Con- 
gress, 383,  385;  impeachment,  386; 
and  Workingman's  movement  in 
the  thirties,  290 ;  author  of  Home- 
stead bill,  367. 

Johnson,  Hiram  W.,  redeems  Cali- 
fornia from  control  of  Southern 
Pacific,  459. 

Judiciary,  in  Constitution,  207 ;  final 
arbiter  (appellate  j  urisdiction) ,  207 
a;  power  to  void  legislation,  191, 
207  6;  life  tenure,  207  c;  power 
augmented  by  Act  of  1789,  217 ;  and 
partisan  law  of  Federalists  in  1801, 
240 ;  repeal  of  Act,  254 ;  Jefferson's 
attacks,  256;  nationalizing  deci- 
sions (1816-1828),  280;  and  first 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  223 ;  and  slav- 
ery in  the  Territories  (Dred  Scot 
case),  353;  denounced  by  Lincoln 
and  the  Republicans,  354 ;  and  the 
war-time  suspension  of  habeas  cor- 
pus, 379  ;  and  Reconstruction,  390; 
and  protection  of  property  inter- 
ests, 208,  399,  401,  410,  41  f,  449 ;  re- 
cent definition  of  "police  power," 
449  c,  note.     See  Supreme  Court. 

Julian,  George  W.,  383,  386;  on 
Republican  demand  for  spoils  in 
1861,  371. 

Jury,  in  Plymouth  laws,  54 ;  in  Massa- 
chusetts colony,  80. 

Kanawha,  battle  of  the  Great,  169. 

Kansas,  struggle  for,  351;  and  Bu- 
chanan's administration,  357;  ad- 
mitted, 370. 

Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  350. 

Kaskaskia,  162. 

Kent,  Chancellor,  295;  denounces 
democracy,  299. 

Kentucky,  early  settlement,  162, 163, 
168-171;  basis  of  Clark's  conquest 


of  the  Northwest,  162,  171;  a 
county  of  Virginia,  171;  admitted 
as  a  State,  224;  democratic  fran- 
chise, 224  b. 

Kentucky  Resolutions  (of  1798  and 
1799),  237. 

Key,  Francis  Scott,  268. 

King-  Philip's  War,  99. 

King's  College,  122. 

King's  Mountain,  battle  of,  159. 

Kitchen  Cabinet,  the,  301. 

Knights  of  Labor,  427,  445. 

Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle, 
379. 

Know  Nothing  party,  349. 

Ku  Klux,  388. 

Labor  movement,  awakening  of 
labor,  287  ff . ;  retrograde  condi- 
tions in  early  19th  century,  288; 
child  labor  in  1830,  ib. ;  early 
unions  and  strikes,  289;  prosecu- 
tion for  "  conspiracy,"  ib. ;  national 
and  local  unions  of  the  thirties, 
289;  political  action  in  1828-1835, 
290;  and  ten-hour  day,  292;  and 
free  schools,  293;  and  human 
rights,  294.  After  the  Civil  War, 
445  ff . ;  strikes  and  labor  war,  446  ; 
and  government  by  injunction, 
447;  boycott,  447;  "closed  shop," 
448;  and  use  of  violence,  449;  con- 
ciliation boards,  449;  gains,  450; 
child  labor,  450  e ;  factory  legisla- 
tion, 450  /;  workingmen's  com- 
pensation, 450  g ;   and  politics,  451. 

Lafayette,  158,  159. 

LaFollette,  Robert  M.,  412,  458, 
459. 

Land  policy.     See  Public  Domain. 

Land  Survey,  United  States,  origin 
and  character,  183  (with  diagrams) . 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  150,  188. 

Lee,  Robert  E.,  374,  375. 

Legal  Tender  Act,  376. 

Legal  tender  decisions,  390. 

Lewis  and  Clark's  expedition, 
262. 

Lexington,  battle  of,  144. 
!  Liberal  Republicans,  389. 


INDEX 


789 


References  are  to  sections 


Liberia,  330. 

Liberty  party,  the,  338. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  boyhood,  272; 
denounces  Dred  Scott  decision, 
354;  debates  with  Douglas,  355; 
"house  divided  against  itself" 
speech,  359;  nominated  for  Presi- 
dency, 358;  elected,  360;  refuses 
to  favor  compromise  on  slavery 
and  Territories,  370 ;  favors  com- 
promise on  fugitive  slaves,  ib. ;  ad- 
ministration, 371  ff . ;  inaugural, 
371 ;  and  Seward,  371 ;  touch  with 
the  people,  ib. ;  and  wear  of  the 
spoils  system,  ib. ;  attempts  for 
compensated  emancipation,  377 ; 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  377; 
and  personal  liberty  in  the  North, 
379 ;  assassinated,  380 ;  and  Recon- 
struction, 382;  and  qualified  Negro 
suffrage,  384. 

Lindsay,  Benjamin  P.,  413,  note. 

Literary  outburst,  about  1830, 
295. 

Local  government,  development  in 
Massachusetts  colony,  71-74  ;  New 
England  and  Virginia  types  com- 
pared, 75;  established  in  Virginia 
on  aristocratic  basis,  103,  106;  in 
Revolutionary  State  constitutions, 
153;  later  developments,  76.  See 
Municipal  Government. 

Loco-Focos,  290. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  quoted  on 
State  sovereignty  in  1789,  210. 

Logan  (Indian  chief),  169. 

"  Log  Cabin  "  campaign,  319. 

London  Company,  foreign  mission- 
ary society  character,  17 ;  founds 
Jamestown,  23;  reorganized  by 
charters  of  1609  and  1612,  25 ;  con- 
servative rule,  26;  becomes  liberal, 
27 ;  establishes  self-government  in 
Virginia,  28-31;  overthrown,  32; 
negotiations  with  the  Pilgrims,  49 ; 
charter  to  same,  49. 

Longfellow,  Henry  Wadsworth, 
295. 

Loose  and  Strict  construction, 
204 ;  close,  222. 


Lord  Dunmore's  War,  169. 
Lorimer,  Senator,  expelled,  468. 
Louisiana,  Territorial  organization, 

260. 
Louisiana     Purchase,     259;     and 

right  to  acquire  territory,  2150  a ; 

and  treaty  rights  of  inhabitants, 

260  b  ;  boundaries,  261. 
L' Overture,    Toussaint,    and    the 

Louisiana  Purchase,  259. 
Lowell,   James   Russell,  on   New 

England  schools,  123 ;  on  secession 

in  1860,  370;  on  the  call  to  arms, 

372,  375. 
Lowell  factory  girls,  285,  and  note. 
Lower  South,  the,  272 ;  political  ac- 
tivity, 368. 
Loyalists  (in  the  Revolution),  147, 

159,  162. 
Lundy,  Benjamin,  335. 
Lundy's  Lane,  268. 
Lyon,  Mathew,  and  Sedition  Law, 

236. 

Maclay,  "William  (democratic  Sen- 
ator Irom  1789  to  1791),  on  presi- 
dential titles,  213;  foils  attempt  to 
turn  Senate  into  a  Privy  Council, 
214;  his  "Journal,"  214,  note. 

McCulloch  vs.  Maryland,  280  e. 

McDonald,  Professor  William,  on 
"We,  the  People,"  211,  close  ;  on 
Webster's  views  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, 305;  on  Compromise  of  1833, 
307. 

McKinley,  William,  Scotch-Irish, 
112,  note;  and  tariff,  420;  Presi- 
dent, 424 ;  tries  to  keep  peace  with 
Spain,  434;  reelection  and  assassi- 
nation, 435. 

McNamara  brothers,  449. 

Madison,  James,  efforts  for  Federal 
Convention,  199;  distrust  of  de- 
mocracy, 200;  "Journal"  of  the 
Convention,  202,  note ;  author  of 
Virginia  Plan,  202;  champion  of 
"checks  and  balances,"  especially 
to  check  democracy,  207  b  and 
note  ;  on  restriction  of  franchise, 
209;     on    convention    method    of 


790 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


ratification,  -211 ;  introduces  first  j 
amendments  in  Congress,  216;  on 
jurisdiction  of  Supreme  Court  over 
States,  218  ;  first  tariff  bill,  219; 
opposes  Hamilton's  financial  plan, 
ib. ;  on  Hamilton's  designs,  229, 
note ;  author  of  Virginia  Resolu- 
tions, 237  ;  Secretary  of  State,  252: 
instructions  to  Livingstone  as  to 
purchase  of  New  Orleans,  259; 
Presidency,  267 ;  weak  foreign  pol- 
icy, 266;  second  term,  267,  note; 
seizure  of  West  Florida,  261;  op- 
poses extension  of  suffrage  in  Vir- 
ginia, in  1830,  299. 

"  Maine  "  (battleship),  the,  explosion 
of,  434. 

Maize,  importance  in  early  settle- 
ment, 7,  8. 

Mann,  Horace,  293. 

Manufactures,  colonial,  restricted 
after  1690,  116,  124;  from  1800  to 
1830,  248;  domestic  and  factory 
systems,  248;  remain  essentially 
"domestic"  till  War  of  1812,  ib.; 
artificially  protected  by  embargo 
and  war,  from  1807  to  1815 ;  rapid 
growth,  279;  demand  for  protec- 
tion after  the  War,  ib. ;  (see  Tariff) 
from  1840  to  1860,  363;  for  first 
time,  excel  value  of  agricultural 
products,  ib.;  after  Civil  War: 
the  New  South,  406;  consolidation 
of  plants,  408;  "trusts,"  409,  412; 
stimulated  by  McKinley  and  Ding- 
ley  tariffs,  so  as  to  compete  with 
English  and  German  in  the  world 
markets,  424.  See  map,  page  386, 
for     "center"     at    each    census. 

Marbury  vs.  Madison,  257. 

Marshall,  John,  in  Virginia  conven- 
tion denies  power  of  Supreme  Court 
to  summon  sovereign  States,  218; 
envoy  to  France,  234 ;  Chief  Justice, 
257 ;  influence,  ib. ;  decisions,  257, 
280 ;  opposes  manhood  franchise  in 
1830,  299. 

Martial  law,  explained,  26;  in  early 
Virginia,  ib. ;  set  aside,  28  b ;  in  the 
North  in  the  Civil  War,  379. 


Martin,  Luther,  on  the  name  Feder- 
alist, 210,  note ;  small-State  leader, 
207,  210. 

Maryland,  36,  39;  political  develop- 
ment, 40,  41 ;  religious  questions, 
42-44;  instructs  against  independ- 
ence in  March  of  1776, 146 ;  rescinds, 
150 ;  and  a  broad  policy  for  the  Na- 
tional Domain,  179;  manhood  suf- 
frage, 299. 

Mason,  George,  author  of  Virginia 
bill  of  rights,  149 ;  in  Philadelphia 
Convention,  200,  fears  "  necessary 
and  proper"  clause,  204,  note;  ad- 
vocates equality  for  future  States, 
205 ;  denounces  slavery,  206 ;  favors 
democratic  franchise,  209;  refuses 
to  sigu  Constitution,  202;  objec- 
tions, 210. 

Mason  and  Dixon's  Line,  109 ;  divid- 
ing line  between  "  North "  and 
"South,"  124. 

Mason  and  Slidell,  379. 

Massachusetts,  colony:  foundation 
in  commercial  enterprise,  56;  Sa- 
lem, 56,  57;  becomes  a  Puritan 
commonwealth  and  corporate  col- 
ony, 57,  58  ff . ;  the  "great  migra- 
tion," 60;  danger  of  interference 
from  England,  61 ;  political  devel- 
opment—  establishment  of  repre- 
sentative government,  62-64 ;  social 
classes  in,  65;  evolution  of  bicam- 
eral legislature,  66-69 ;  Body  of  Lib- 
erties, 67,  81;  local  government, 
71-74 ;  evolution  of  the  ballot,  77 ; 
judiciary,  79;  juries,  80;  written 
laws,  81 ;  English  Common  Law  in, 
80,  81;  and  theocracy,  82;  ideals, 
83;  religious  persecution,  84;  in 
New  England  Confederation,  90-92 ; 
and  Charles  II,  97,  99 ;  rule  of  An- 
dros,  100;  second  charter  (1691), 
101 ;  Royal  Province,  salary  of  gov- 
ernor, 118;  in  Revolution,  141-144, 
145,  ff . ;  transition  from  colony  to 
commonwealth,  145;  government 
in  early  years  of  Revolution,  145; 
State  constitution,  152 ;  first  con- 
stitution to   receive  popular   rati- 


INDEX 


791 


References  are  to  sections 


fication,  ib. ;  and  slavery,  149, 
330. 

Massachusetts  Bay  Charter,  56, 
59,  61,  90, 101. 

Massachusetts  Bay  Company,  57, 
58. 

Matthews,  Samuel,  governor  of 
Virginia,  37. 

Mayflower,  the,  50. 

Mayflower  Compact,  the,  51,  53, 55. 

Mechanics'  Free  Press,  the,  288; 
founded,  287 ;  and  the  public  do- 
main, 316,  note. 

Mecklenburg-  county,  legend  of 
declaration  of  independence,  143, 
note. 

"  Merrimac  "  ("  Virginia  "),  the,  374. 

Methodist  church,  295. 

Mexican  War,  341. 

"  Midnight  judges,"  257. 

Minimum  valuation  clause,  in 
tariffs,  279  c. 

Missouri  Compromise,  the,  283; 
vote  on,  333. 

Mitchell,  John,  head  of  coal  miners, 
446,  447. 

"  Monitor  "  and  "  Merrimac,"  374. 

MonmOuth,  battle  of,  158. 

Monopoly,  natural,  408;  legalized, 
ib. ;  "big  business,"  ib. ;  trusts, 
409;  attempts  to  regulate,  410 ;  and 
Supreme  Court,  411 ;  extent  and 
danger,  412. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  the,  277 ;  and  the 
French  in  Mexico,  393;  and  Eng- 
land and  Venezuela,  433;  and  in- 
solvent Spanish  American  states, 
441. 

Monroe,  James,  on  the  West,  182; 
and  Louisiana  Purchase,  259 ;  Pres- 
idency, 278 ;  Monroe  Doctrine,  277. 

Montcalm,  16,  114. 

Moore,  Ely,  representative  of  labor, 
290. 

Morgan,  J.  Pierpont,  412. 

Mormonism,  297,  405. 

Morrill  bill  (National  aid  to  State 
institutions),  376. 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  denounces 
democracy  in  Philadelphia  Conven- 


tion, 200;  words  the  Constitution, 
202 ;  attempts  to  limit  influence  of 
new  States,  205;  wishes  only  free- 
holders to  vote,  209;  expects  an- 
archy after  Jefferson's  election, 
229;  hopes  for  New  England's  se- 
cession in  War  of  1812,  270. 

Morris,  Robert,  200. 

Moten,  Charles,  391. 

Mugwump,  419. 

Municipal  government,  303,  366, 
413,465-467.  See  Caucus,  "Boss," 
Local  Government,  Cities. 

Narragansetts,  the,  84. 

National  Bank,  the  First,  222;  the 
Second,  278  and  note;  and  Jack- 
son, 309-311. 

National  banks,  376,  436. 

National  debt,  in  1790,  219,  220 ;  in 
1800,  254;  in  1809,  ib.;  after  War 
of  1812,  268 ;  paid  off  in  1835,  312 ; 
in  Civil  War,  and  since,  376,  381. 

National  Nominating  Conven- 
tion, origin,  310;  discussed,  323, 
324;  modified  by  Direct  Presiden- 
tial Primaries,  468 ;  Republican  and 
Democratic  of  1860,  358;  Demo- 
cratic in  1912,  458. 

National  Road,  the,  265,  272  a,  278. 

Naturalization,  American  doctrine 
of,  231  c  (5)  and  note ;  fraudulent, 
231;  Act  of  1798,  235,  and  repeal, 
254 ;  present  law,  Constitution  and 
note  in  Appendix. 

Navigation  Acts,  English,  96 ;  dis- 
regarded by  Massachusetts,  97; 
hard  upon  small  planters  in  Vir- 
ginia, 104;  second  series,  after 
1710,  116;  attempts  to  enforce  in 
Intercolonial  Wars  by  "  writs  of  as- 
sistance," 129;  Sugar  Act  of  1764, 
131. 

"Necessary  and  Proper "  clause, 
in  Constitution,  discussed,  204  b; 
Chief  Justice  Marshall,  upon,  280  e, 
note. 

Negroes,  in  colonial  times,  124;  de- 
moralized labor  system  at  close  of 
War,  381  (and  see  Freedman'sBu- 


792 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


reau) ;  "Black  laws"  of  "recon- 
structed" Southern  States,  384; 
Civil  Rights  bill,  390  (and  see  Four- 
teenth and  Fifteenth  amendments) ; 
since  Reconstruction,  391;  land- 
owners, 407;  franchise,  384,  385, 
387,  388,  390,  391;  Lincoln  and 
Negro  suffrage,  384.  (See  Slavery 
for  period  to  1865.) 

Neutrality  Proclamation,  Wash- 
ington's, 230. 

Newburg  Address,  161. 

New  England,  to  1660,  45-92 ;  New 
England  Confederation, '90-92;  and 
Charles  II,  97-99 ;  and  Andros,  100 ; 
settlement  of  1691 ,  101 ;  decay  of 
Puritanism  after  1660,  121;  gloom, 
ib. ;  "  blue  laws,"  120 ;  schools,  123 : 
society  in  colonial  times,  industries, 
etc.,  124;  traitorous  attitude  in 
War  of  1812,  268-270;  earlier  plots 
for  secession,  269;  Hartford  Con- 
vention, 270 ;  about  1830,  285  a ;  lit- 
erary supremacy,  295. 

New  England  Confederation,  90- 
92. 

New  England  Council  (Plymouth 
Council),  45  ff.,  55,  61. 

New  England  Mechanics'  Con- 
vention, in  1832,  on  education  and 
child  labor,  288. 

New  Harmony,  297. 

New  Jersey,  and  the  trusts,  411. 

New  Jersey  plan,  the.  in  Philadel- 
phia Convention,  200  a;  and  Fed- 
eral Judiciary,  207  a. 

New  Netherlands,  92,  98,  108. 

New  Orleans,  battle  of,  268. 

New  Orleans,  Territory  of,  260  b. 

New  South,  the,  406. 

Newspapers,  colonial,  122;  first 
daily,  295. 

Newtown,  60,  note ;  democratic, 
87. 

New  York,  94,  100,  108,  117;  and 
Declaration  of  Independence,  150; 
extends  franchise,  299;  gradual 
emancipation,  330. 

Nominations,  systems  of :  in  colonial 
Massachusetts,  63,  66  a;  attempts 


at  conventions  and  at  direct  prima- 
ries, 78;  the  caucus  (which  see), 
227,  281,  310;  by  legislatures  in 
1807,  258,  and  in  1824,  281 ;  national 
conventions  after  1830, 324 ;  and  the 
"bosses,"  325;  modified  or  super- 
seded by  direct  primaries,  325, 461, 
468. 
I  North  Carolina,  industries  in  colo- 
nial days,  124 ;  democratic  constitu- 
tion in  1776,  154;  accedes  to  the 
Union,  224. 

Northeast  boundary  disputes, 
arbitration,  232,  321. 

Northern  Securities  case,  409, 410. 

North,  Lord,  139,  140,  158. 

Northwest  posts,  retained  by  Great 
Britain,  162;    surrendered,  231  a. 

Northwest  Territory,  182,  184. 
See  Northwest,  the  Old. 

Northwest,  the  Old,  England's  ac- 
quisition, and  attempt  to  restrict 
settlement,  164;  French  settle- 
ments in,  164 ;  annexed  to  Quebec, 
ib.;  Clark's  conquest,  162;  a 
National  domain,  177  ff. ;  State 
claims,  178 ;  Maryland  insists  upon 
a  common  domain,  179;  cessions, 
180;  National  organization,  181- 
183;  Ordinance  of  1784,  181;  of 
1787,  182;  Survey  Ordinance,  183; 
early  settlement,  184 ;  slavery  sur- 
vival in,  330;  attempts  to  perpetu- 
ate slavery  in,  332. 

Nullification,  by  Massachusetts 
colony  in  New  England  Confedera- 
tion, 94;  doctrine  in  Kentucky 
Resolutions,  237;  asserted  and 
practiced  by  New  England  after 
Jefferson's  embargo,  269,  and  in 
War  of  1812,  270;  Calhoun's  "  Ex- 
position," 304;  Webster-Hayne 
debate,  305;  attempted  by  South 
Carolina,  306. 

Oberlin,  admits  women,  295. 

Ohio,   admitted,   184;     growth   from 

1800  to  1810,  263 ;  and  Black  laws, 

332. 
Oklahoma,  reforms,  459. 


INDEX 


793 


References  are  to  sections 


"Old  Style"  and  "New  Style," 
29,  note. 

Oliver,  Andrew,  stamp  distributor, 
138. 

Ordinances  of  1787,  etc.  See 
Northwest. 

Oregon,  exploration  and  title  to, 
262;  claimed  by  United  States, 
276;  titles  of  other  countries,  ib. ; 
controversy  with  '  England,  339, 
340 ;  compromise  boundary,  340 ;  a 
leading  State  in  political  and  social 
reform,  459,  460,  468,  469. 

Ostend  Manifesto,  342. 

Otis,  James,  129,  134,  138. 

Owen,  Robert,  297  and  note. 

Paine,  Thomas,  146  and  note; 
"Common  Sense,"  146;  proposes 
Territorial  organization,  181,  note; 
proposes  a  "  Continental  Constitu- 
tion," 199,  note. 

Panama  Canal,  442. 

Panics,  Industrial,  perhaps  in  1786, 
191;  in  1819,  279;  in  1837,  313;  in 
1857,  365;  in  1873,  396,  346;  of 
1893,  429;  "manufactured"  in 
1907,  412. 

Paper  money,  colonial,  124;  Conti- 
nental, 160,  189,  219;  State  fiat 
money  after  1783, 191,  192 ;  in  Civil 
War,  376 ;  after,  392,  426-428,  436. 
See  Legal  tender  decisions,  and 
Greenback  party. 

Parcels  post,  470. 

Parish,  unit  for  local  government  in 
Virginia,  103,  106. 

Party  government,  rise  of,  226; 
first  trial,  227;  explained,  228-229; 
and  power  of  the  Speaker,  328. 

Paternalism,  in  government,  in 
French  colonies,  14;  in  Virginia 
under  the  company,  31. 

Patterson,  William,  in  Philadelphia 
Convention,  200.  202 

Peace  Convention  of  1861,  370. 

Penn,  William,  109,  110;  grants 
charter  of  privileges  to  settlers,  110. 

Pennsylvania,  109,  110 ;  and  colonial 
industries,  124 ;  and  independence, 


150;  and  internal  improvements, 
265;  and  slavery,  330. 

Pensions  (for  Civil  War),  422. 

Pequods,  the,  5. 

Pet  banks,  Jackson's,  311. 

Peters,  Samuel  A.  (Rev.),  inven- 
tor of  "  blue  law  "  myth,  120. 

Petersburg-,  battle  of,  375. 

Philadelphia  Convention  (the 
Federal),  199  ff . ;  distrust  of  de- 
mocracy, 200  and  passim;  mem- 
bers, 200;  problems  and  models, 
201;  parties  in,  201,  203,  note  re- 
gard for  experience,  201 ;  stages 
of  procedure,  202;  records,  202, 
note;  Virginia  plan,  202;  New 
Jersey  plan,  202;  Connecticut 
Compromise,  203;  second  great 
compromise  (on  wealth) ,  205 ;  third 
(on  slavery)  206 ;  work.  See  Con- 
stitution. 

Philippines,  434,  435,  439. 

Phillips,  Wendell,  335 ;  on  right  of 
secession,  370. 

Pickering,  Thomas,  New  England 
Federalist,  distrusts  democracy, 
229;  plots  for  New  England  se- 
cession, 269,  note,  270. 

Pike,  Zebulon,  exploration,  262. 

"Pilgrims,"  the,  in  Holland,  47; 
reasons  for  coming  to  America, 
48 ;  negotiation  with  London  Com- 
pany, 49  and  note,  50;  Wincob 
charter,  49,  51,  note;  London 
partners  and  terms,  49;  settlement 
at  Plymouth,  50.     See  Plymouth. 

Pillory,  in  colonies,  120. 

Pinchot,  Chief  Forester,  454. 

Pinckney,  CO.,  in  Philadelphia 
Convention,  207 ;  envoy  to  France, 
233. 

Pinckney,  Thomas,  minister  to 
Spain,  233. 

Pinckney,  treaty  of  1795,  233. 

11  Pine  Tree  Shillings,"  97. 

Pitt,  William,  imperial  policy,  127 ; 
attempt  to  reconcile  parliamentary 
control  over  colonies  with  exemp- 
tion from  taxation,  135;  goes  into 
the  Lords,  139. 


794 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Pitt,  William,  the  Younger,  on 
the  American  Revolution,  136. 

Plank  roads,  273,  note. 

Plantation,  the  Southern,  described 
for  colonial  times,  124. 

Plymouth,  place  named  by  John 
Smith,  50;  selected  by  Pilgrims, 
ib. ;  early  history,  49  ff. ;  May- 
flower Compact,  51;  industry  in 
common,  and  failure,  49,  51;  false 
expectations  of  wealth,  52*  settle- 
ment with  London  partners,  52 ;  and 
private  ownership,  52;  a  "corpo- 
rate colony,"  ib. ;  political  develop- 
ment, 53;  frame  of  government, 
53;  representative  government 
late,  53  6  ;  local  government  —  late 
development,  53  c;  meaning  in 
history,  54;  democracy,  54;  char- 
ters, 55 ;  annexed  to  Massachusetts, 
55,  101. 

Plymouth  Company,  22,  23;  reor- 
ganized by  charter  of  1620  as  New 
England  Council,  which  see. 

Poe,  Edgar  Allan,  295. 

"Police  power,"  the,  as  means  of 
constitutional  growth,  450  c  and 
note. 

Political  morals,  low  in  1787-1800, 
182,  note,  239,  250. 

Polk,  James  K.,  presidency,  340,  341. 

Pontiac's  "War,  130,  note. 

Population,  of  England  and  France 
compared  with  their  colonies  in 
17th  century,  16;  of  England,  18; 
in  Virginia  colony,  24,  29,  31,  102, 
104;  in  Plymouth,  54;  in  Massa- 
chusetts colony;  60;  in  New 
England  Confederation,  in  1643, 
92;  colonial,  in  1660,  94;  in  1690, 
95;  in  1760,  111;  in  1775,  124; 
mixed  elements  in  1760,  124;  in 
1790,  246,  note ;  in  1800,  246 ;  west- 
ward movement  of,  from  1800  to 
1810,  263;  same  from  1810  to  1830, 
273;  centers  of,  map  page  386; 
census  of  1830,  284,  285;  of  1840 
and  1850,  343 ;  in  1860,  366,  368 ;  for 
each  decade  since  the  Civil  War,  404. 

Populists,  the,  427. 


Porto  Rico,  434,  438. 

Postage,  in  1800,  247;  in  1850  and 
after,  362. 

Preemption  Act,  the,  317.  See 
Public  Domain. 

Preferential  voting,  467. 

Presbyterians,  Scotch-Irish,  112. 

Presidency,  the,  electoral  college, 
208 ;  term,  unwritten  limitation, 
258 ;  new  importance  after  Jack- 
son, 300;  and  patronage,  326. 

Presidential  elections,  1789,  212; 
1792,  1796,  227;  1800,  239,  241 ;  1804, 
258 ;  1808  and  1812,  267  and  note ; 
1816  and  1820  and  224,  281 ;  1828, 
283 ;  1832,  310 ;  1840,  313,  319 ;  1844, 
338,339;  1848,  345;  1852,  348,  349; 
1856,  352;  I860,  358-360;  1864,  377; 
1868,  386 ;  1872  and  1776,  389 ;  1880, 
416 ;  1884,  419  ;  1888,  420,  421 ;  1892, 
423;  1896,  430;  1900,  435;  1904,  454; 
1908,  455  ;  1912,  458. 

Presidential  veto.     See  Veto. 

Prigg  vs.  Pennsylvania,  223. 

Primary  elections.  See  Nomina- 
tions. 

Princeton  College,  122,  note. 

Priscilla  (Alden),  unable  to  write, 
122,  note. 

"  Progress  and  Poverty,"  453. 

Progressives,  the,  454-470. 

Progressive  party,  the,  458. 

"Protection."     See  Tariff. 

Public  Domain,  the,  creation,  178- 
180 ;  National  organization,  181- 
182 ;  land  survey,  183  ;  and  public 
schools,  183;  and  State  universi- 
ties, ib. ;  first  steps  in  land  policy, 
183 ;  credit  system  of  1800,  263,  272, 
note ;  reforms  in  1820,  272 ;  oppos- 
ing policies  in  1830,  315 ;  Organized 
Labor  and,  315;  as  a  source  for 
homes,  not  revenue,  315-317,  367; 
Clay  and,  316;  Preemption  Act, 
317;  grants  to  States,  317;  Set- 
tlers' Associations,  318;  struggle 
for  Homestead  law,  367;  passed, 
376;  looting  of  the  domain,  407; 
and  Roosevelt's  administration,  ib. ; 
and  the  Ballinger  treachery,  458. 


INDEX 


795 


References  are  to  sections 


Public  service  corporations,  fran- 
chises and  the  Constitution,  207  c 
and  note;  and  corruption  in  poli- 
tics, 413. 

Pullman  strike,  the,  446. 

Puritanism,  factor  in  colonization, 
46;  described,  ib.;  in  Maryland, 
43,  44;  in  Holland,  47;  in  Ply- 
mouth, 48-55;  in  Massachusetts 
colony,  56-85 ;  decay  in  latter  part 
of  17th  century,  121;  survival  in 
South  Carolina,  368. 

Quakers,  in  Massachusetts,  97;  and 
antislavery  movements,  223,  330. 
See  Penn  and  Pennsylvania. 

Quay,  Senator,  423  and  note. 

Quebec  Act,  141. 

Quincy,  Josiah,  denounces  admis- 
sion of  Louisiana,  260  b  and  note ; 
on  national  law  for  enlistment  in 
War  of  1812,  270. 

Railroads,  early  history,  298;  since 
1860,  395,  396,  397,  398,  399,  400^03, 
410. 

Raleigh.  Sir  Walter,  17,  21,  22. 

Randolph,  Edmund,  149,  200,  202, 
205,  215. 

Randolph,  John,  warning  to  con- 
sumers in  1816  tariff  debates,  279; 
opposes  extension  of  franchise, 
299. 

Recall,  the,  463.     See  Arizona. 

Reconstruction,  381-392. 

Referendum,  the,  464. 

Regulators,  War  of,  137. 

Religious  freedom,  toleration  in 
Catholic  Maryland,  42-44;  refused 
by  English  Church  in  Maryland, 
44;  denied  to  Separatists  in  Eng- 
land, 47;  found  in  Holland,  47; 
in  Plymouth,  54;  rejected  by  Mas- 
sachusetts Puritans,  84;  and  by 
Long  Parliament  in  England,  ib. ; 
ideal  stated  by  Lord  Brooke  in 
1641,  84;  Puritan  persecution  of 
dissenters,  84,  85;  and  Rhode  Is- 
land, 86;  and  Pennsylvania,  110; 
in  Virginia  bill  of  rights,  149;  not 


absolute  in  most  State  constitu- 
tions of  the  Revolutionary  period, 
153;  in  first  amendment  to  Fed- 
eral Constitution,  216. 

Representative  government  (co- 
lonial), appearance  in  Virginia  as 
gift  of  London  Company,  29,  30; 
preserved  by  the  colonists  against 
royal  attack,  34 ;  character  in  Vir- 
ginia in  1630-1660,  35;  Assembly 
asserts  control  over  taxation,  34, 
36;  enlarged  power  in  Virginia 
during  Commonwealth,  37;  in 
Maryland,  suggested  in  charter 
from  the  king,  39;  development, 
40,  41  ;  in  Massachusetts,  struggle 
for,  and  victory,  62-64;  movement 
for  in  New  Netherlands  due  to 
English  settlers,  134 ;  imperfections 
in  the  colonies,  134,  137  b. 

Republican  party,  of  Jefferson, 
226  ff. 

Republican  party,  the,  organized 
out  of  the  anti-Nebraska  men ;  ele- 
ments from  all  the  old  parties,  352 ; 
and  Dred  Scott  decision,  353,  354, 
355;  campaign  of  1860,  358;  vic- 
tory, 360  and  passim. 

"Restoration,"  the  English,  char- 
acter of  the  period  in  colonial  his- 
tory, 93,  103. 

Revere,  Paul,  111,  note. 

Revolution,  the  American,  136- 
162. 

"  Revolution  of  1800,"  the,  252. 

"  Revolution  of  1828,"  the,  284  ff. 

Rhode  Island,  84,  85;  ideal  con- 
trasted with  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut,  85;  contrasted  with 
Maryland,  86;  refuses  to  ratify 
Constitution,  210;  accedes  to  the 
Union,  210  and  note;  Dorr's  Rebel- 
lion, 322  b  ;  reforms  of  1842,  ib. 

"  Rights  of  Man,"  in  Virginia  bill  of 
rights,  149. 

Right  of  search,  explained,  231  c; 
and  the  slave  trade,  331. 

Robertson,  James,  founder  of 
Watauga,  112,  166,  172,  175. 

Robinson,  Pastor,  47,  51,  52,  54. 


796 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


Roosevelt,  Theodore,  and  civil 
service,  418,  421 ;  and  Jap-Russian 
War,  440;  and  Spanish- American 
states,  441 ;  and  Panama  Canal, 
442 ;  early  career,  454 ;  administra- 
tion, 435,  454  ;  and  the  Coal  strike, 
446  c  ;  on  the  judiciary,  450  c,  note ; 
candidate  for  Republican  nomina- 
tion in  1912,  458;  founds  new  party, 
ib. 

Royal  provinces,  Virginia  after 
1624,  33  ff.,  Massachusetts  after 
1691,  101;  New  Hampshire,  101, 
117 ;  attempts  to  convert  other  col- 
onies into,  117. 

Rule  of  '56,  231  c. 

Rutledge,  Edward,  142,  200. 

"  Salary  grab,"  the,  389. 

Salem,  57,  84. 

Samoa,  434. 

Sandys,  Sir  Edwin,  leader  of  liber- 
als in  London  Company,  27,  31; 
obnoxious  to  King  James,  27,  32; 
relation  to  Puritan  colonies,  49, 
note. 

Scotch-Irish,  in  American  history, 
112,  124. 

Scots  (Highlanders),  in  colonies,  124. 

Scott,  Winfleld,  in  Mexican  War, 
341 ;  presidential  candidate,  348. 

Scrooby,  English  home  of  the  Pil- 
grims, 47. 

Secession,  by  South  Carolina  and 
Gulf  States,  368;  second  tier  of 
States,  373 ;  Southern  constitutional 
theory  of,  ib.     See  Civil  War. 

Sedition  Act.  See  Alien  and  Sedi- 
tion Acts. 

Selectmen,  71,  note. 

Seminole  War,  308,  note. 

Senate  of  the  United  States, 
method  of  election  by  State  legis- 
latures advocated  as  an  assimila- 
tion to  House  of  Lords,  200; 
designed  for  a  guardian  of  property, 
200  ff . ;  in  Connecticut  Compromise 
made  a  representative  of  the  States, 
203;  relations  with  the  executive 
settled  in  Washington's  adminis- 


tration, 214;  direct  elections, 
amendment  and  practice,  461,  468. 

Separatists  (Brownists),  46;  de- 
nounced by  other  Puritans,  82, 
note.  See  Pilgrims,  Plymouth, 
Puritans. 

"Servants"  indentured,  occasion 
for,  19 ;  large  element  in  early  Vir- 
ginia, 25,  26,  28,  104;  in  Plymouth, 
51 ;  in  Massachusetts  colony,  57, 
59 ;  character  in  Massachusetts,  60 ; 
social  rank,  65  d;  at  the  period  of 
the  Revolution  in  the  colonies,  124. 

Seventeenth  Amendment,  the, 
468,  note. 

Sevier,  John,  166,  175,  176. 

Seward,  W.  H.,  on  Buchanan's 
"secession"  message,  370,  note; 
Secretary  of  State,  370,  371. 

Shays'  Rebellion,  192. 

Shelbourne,  Lord,  "  friend  to 
America,"  136;  and  treaty  of  1783, 
162. 

Sherman,  John,  410,  and  note;  on 
danger  of  money  kings,  412. 

Sherman,  Roger,  200  ff. 

Sherman,  W.  T.,  march  to  the  sea, 
374. 

Shipping,  encouraged  in  New  Eng- 
land by  English  navigation  acts, 
96;  colonial,  in  18th  century,  124; 
growth  during  European  wars, 
1793-1815,  266. 

Single  Tax,  the,  453. 

Sixteenth  Amendment,  the,  424 
and  note. 

Slaughter  House  cases,  390. 

Slavery,  in  Virginia  colony,  104;  in 
colonies  in  general,  124 ;  abolished 
in  Massachusetts  by  bill  of  rights 
(but  not  by  same  clause  in  Vir- 
ginia document),  149,  note;  State 
emancipation  to  1804,  330;  in  the 
Philadelphia  Convention,  205,  206 ; 
attempt  to  exclude  from  the  Na- 
tional Domain,  in  Ordinance  of 
1884,  181,  note;  and  in  Northwest 
Ordinance,  182;  in  Washington's 
administration,  223 ;  first  Fugitive 
Slave  law,  ib. ;    foreign  trade  for- 


INDEX 


797 


References  are  to  sections 


bidden  after  1808,  258;  effect  of 
American  Revolution  on,  329;  slav- 
ery on  the  defensive  from  1776  to 
1820,329-333;  State  emancipation, 
330 ;  survival  in  Old  Northwest  to 
1840,  330;  Colonization  societies, 
330;  and  Quakers,  ib.;  antislavery 
societies,  330 ;  foreign  trade,  despite 
the  law,  331,  334,  note;  and  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  332;  "Black 
laws  of  Northwestern  States,"  332 ; 
Slave  Power,  reinforced  by  new 
commercial  interests,  and  by  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  Territory,  330 ; 
Missouri  Compromise,  283;  slavery 
aggressive  after  1830,  334  ff . ;  do- 
mestic slave  trade,  334,  note ;  and 
the  abolitionists,  335 ;  slave  insur- 
rections and  slave  codes,  336;  and 
right  of  free  speech  for  white  men, 
337;  antislavery  parties,  338  ff . ; 
and  territorial  expansion,  339  ff. ; 
and  Mexican  War,  341;  effect  on 
distribution  of  immigration,  343 ; 
Wilmot  proviso,  344;  Compromise 
of  1850,  347;  enforcement  of  new 
Fugitive  Slave  law,  348 ;  repeal  of 
Missouri  Compromise,  by  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  350 ;  Popular  Sover- 
eignty doctrine,  ib. ;  "  bleeding 
Kansas,"  351 ;  birth  of  Republican 
party,  and  first  campaign,  352 ; 
Dred  Scott  decision,  353;  "Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin "  and  John  Brown 
raid,  356 ;  and  election  of  1860,  358 
-360;  effect  on  Southern  society 
and  industries,  366;  in  the  War, 
375, 377 ;  proposals  for  compensated 
emancipation,  377;  abolished  in 
District  of  Columbia,  ib. ;  in  Terri- 
tories, ib. ;  Emancipation  Procla- 
mation, ib. ;  and  reaction  at  North, 
377 ;  abolished  in  Border  States,  ib. ; 
Thirteenth  Amendment,  ib. 

Smith,  Adam,  116,  134. 

Smith,  John,  18,  24,  50,  52. 

Smith,  Sir  Thomas,  Treasurer  of 
London  Company,  26,  32,  note. 

Smithsonian  Institution,  295. 

Socialism,  435,  452,  453,  458. 


Social  reform,  of  the  thirties,  297 ; 
of  our  own  day,  470. 

Social  unrest,  444  ff.  See  Labor 
movement,  Progressive  movement, 
etc. 

Sons  of  Liberty,  138. 

South,  the,  in  colonial  times,  124;  in 
1830,  285  b ;  before  the  Civil  War, 
366.  See  Lower  South  and  New 
South. 

Southampton,  Earl  of,  27,  32. 

South  Carolina,  see  Carolinas. 
Convention  refuses  to  consider 
Gadsen's  motion  for  Independence 
in  February  of  1776,  146;  chooses 
presidential  electors  by  legislature 
to  1860,  207  a,  299 ;  and  nullifica- 
tion movement,  304-306 ;  secession, 
368. 

Southern  Confederacy,  369  ff. 

Spain,  rival  of  England  in  America, 
9, 17,  24;  cedes  Florida  to  England, 
114;  receives  Louisiana  from 
France,  114;  and  the  trade  of  the 
Western  settlements,  175,  176 ;  and 
the  Revolutionaiy  War,  158 ;  bound- 
ary disputes,  162,  note ;  settlement, 
233;  Spanish  War  of  1898,  434. 

Speaker,  Mr.,  growth  of  poAver,  328. 

Special  Privilege  vs.  the  People, 
394  ff.  See  Public  Service  Corpo- 
rations, Tariff,  Raihoays. 

Specie  Circular,  313. 

Spoils  system,  the,  302,  325.  See 
Civil  Service. 

Squatters'  rights,  to  public  land 
preemption,  318. 

Stamp  Act,  of  1775,  131,  132. 

Stamp  Act  Congress,  138. 

Standard  Oil  Company,  398; 
"trust,"  410,411,412. 

Star  Route  scandal,  417. 

Star  Spang-led  Banner,  268. 

State,  the,  distinguished  from  State 
government,  211,  and  note. 

State  constitutions,  in  Revolution- 
ary days,  provisional,  147 ;  Vir- 
ginia, 148,  149;  others,  151;  method 
of  adoption,  152;  characteristics, 
153;     limited    franchise    in,    154; 


798 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


amending  clauses,  155 ;  suggestions 
for  study  of  present-day  constitu- 
tions, 156. 

States,  the,  and  the  Nation,  204. 

States,  admission  of,  224,  265,  260, 
and  note,  273,  285,  note,  339,  343, 
347,  357,  370,  404,  405. 

States,  awakening'  of,  459  ff . 

States  Rights,  see  Constitution  (fed- 
eral) ;  also,  260,  269,  270,  282,  and 
passim. 

State  universities,  and  National 
land  grants,  183. 

Steamboat,  the,  264,  272. 

Steel  trust,  the,  402,  410;  and  its 
workmen,  444. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  368,  369. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  385,  390. 

Stiles,  Dr.,  discoverer  of  the  hook- 
worm, 470. 

Stoughton,  Israel,  disfranchised  hy 
Massachusetts  colony  for  criticizing 
veto  of  magistrates,  68. 

Sugar  Acts,  of  1733,  116,  note;  of 
1764,  131. 

Sugar  trust,  the,  cheating,  407,  note ; 
and  relations  with  Cuha,  437,  note. 

Sumner,  Charles,  385. 

Sumter,  Fort,  370. 

Supreme  Court,  the,  in  Constitu- 
tion, 207 ;  in  Judiciary  Act  of  1789, 
217  a;  Chisholm  vs.  Georgia,  218; 
original  jurisdiction  limited  by 
Eleventh  Amendment,  ib. ;  asserted 
by  some  State  legislatures  to  be 
final  arbiter,  in  reply  to  Kentucky 
Resolutions,  237  ;  Marbury  vs.  Mad- 
ison.   See  Judiciary  (Federal). 

Taft,  William  H.,  veto  of  Arizona 
statehood,  405;  and  civil  service, 
418 ;  elected  President,  455 ;  reac- 
tionary policies,  456  ff. ;  and  Payne- 
Aldrich  tariff,  457 ;  defeat  in  1912, 
458. 

Tallmadge,  James  W.,  323  and 
note. 

Tammany,  413. 

Tariff,  of  1789,  219  and  note ;  growth 
to  1815,  235,  279;   new   conditions 


due  to  the  artificial "  protection  "  to 
industries  during  War  period,  279; 
change  to  policy  of  tariff  for  pro- 
tection, rather  than  revenue,  ib. ; 
arguments  pro  and  con,  ib. ;  tariff 
of  1816,  1824,  and  1828,  279,  a,  b, 
c;  exercise  on  protective  and  rev- 
enue tariffs,  close  of,  279;  and 
threats  of  secession  at  South,  and 
tariff  of  1832,  304  ff. ;  compromise 
tariff  of  1833,  307;  Greeley's  doc- 
trine of.  protection  to  labor,  320; 
and  further  tariff  legislation  to 
Civil  War,  321 ;  return  to  protection 
in  Morrill  tariff  of  1861,  365;  "  war 
tariffs,"  376;  futile  attempt  to  re- 
duce in  1873,  420;  Cleveland  and, 
420 ;  Mills  bill,  ib. ;  McKinley  tariff, 
422;  "big  business"  and,  422  ff . ; 
reciprocity  provisions,  ib. ;  Wilson 
tariff,  423;  Dingley,  424;  Payne- 
Aldrich  tariff,  and  Insurgent  move- 
ment, 457. 

Taxation,  direct  and  indirect,  221, 
note. 

Taxation  and  Representation, 
principle  asserted  by  Virginia  in 
1623,  34;  reenacted,  36;  different 
understanding  of  in  England  and 
the  colonies,  134 ;  claim  of  Pitt  that 
taxation  was  no  part  of  govern- 
ment, 134. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  in  Mexican  War, 
341 ;  presidency,  345,  347. 

Tea,  in  American  Revolution,  141  and 
note. 

Tecumthe,  272  b. 

Tennessee.  See  Watauga,  Cum- 
berland settlements,  etc. ;  admitted, 
224 ;  franchise,  299. 

Territorial  growth,  and  American 
ideals,  244;  treaty  of  1783,  162; 
Louisiana  Purchase,  259;  West 
Florida,  261 ;  and  slavery,  339  ff . ; 
Texas,  339;  Oregon,  340;  Mexican 
War,  341,  and  seizure  of  territory, 
ib. ;  Gadsen  Purchase,  342 ;  Alaska 
Purchase,  393 ;  Hawaii,  Samoa,  etc., 
434;  Porto  Rico,  Guam,  and  the 
Philippines  (in  Spanish  War),  434. 


INDEX 


799 


References  are  to  sections 


Territories.     See  Public  Domain. 

Territory,  power  to  acquire,  260  a. 

Texas,  question  as  to  inclusion  in 
Louisiana  Purchase,  261;  history 
and  annexation,  339;  secession*  368.  | 

Thames,  battle  of,  268;  notable  for 
death  of  Tecumthe,  272  b. 

Theocracy,  in  Massachusetts  colony, 
82-84. 

Thirteenth  amendment,  377. 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  389. 

Tobacco,  and  early  industries,  7,  8; 
in  early  Virginia,  31. 

Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  on  the 
Federal  Constitution,  198  and  note. 

Toleration  Act  of  1649,  in  Mary- 
land, 43. 

Townshend,  Charles,  139. 

Transcendentalists  (in  New  Eng- 
land), 297. 

Transylvania,  170. 

Trevett  vs.  Weeden,  191. 

Turner,  Frederick  J.,  quoted  on 
meaning  of  the  frontier,  185. 

Tweed  ring,  413. 

Twelfth  amendment,  and  election 
of  1800,  241. 

Tyler,  John,  319,  321,  322. 

Union  Pacific  land  grants,  376; 
and  Credit  Mobilier,  389. 

Unitarianism,  295. 

"United  States,"  two  territorial 
meanings,  260  c,  439. 

University  of  Pennsylvania,  122, 
note. 

University  of  Virginia,  and  Jeffer- 
son, 252. 

Uren,  William,  progressive  leader, 
and  Single  Taxer,  459 ;  on  direct 
legislation  in  Oregon,  464 ;  on  direct 
nomination  of  United  States  Sena- 
ators  in  Oregon,  468. 

Vallandigham  case,  379  a. 

Valley  Forge,  158. 

Van  Buren,  presidency,  313,  314; 
and  ten-hour  day,  292;  and  Inde- 
pendent Treasury,  314. 

Vane,  Sir  Harry,  84. 

Vergennes,  162. 


Vermont,  a  de  facto  State,  with  man- 
hood suffrage  in  1777-1791, 154,  note; 
admitted  224;  emancipation,  330. 

Vestry.     See  Parish. 

Veto,  of  royal  governors  in  colonies, 
35,  and  passim ;  denied  in  Virginia 
during  "  Commonwealth,  37  ;  con- 
trolled by  colonial  power  over  sal- 
ary appropriations,  118 ;  of  king  • 
on  colonial  legislation,  118,  note, 
and  elsewhere ;  in  Revolutionary 
State  constitutions,  153 ;  New  York 
and  Massachusetts  clauses,  of  1777 
and  1880,  in  notes  to  Constitution, 
in  Appendix ;  in  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, ib. ;  growth  in  hands  of  Jack- 
son (along  with  new  position  of 
presidency),  301 ;  history  to  Cleve- 
land's administration,  and  growth 
at  that  time,  422  and  note ;  in  State 
governments,  since  1830,  303. 

Vicksburg,  siege  of,  374. 

Virginia,  patriotic  and  missionary 
motives  back  of  colonization,  17- 
19;  under  the  London  Company, 
22-32;  charter  of  1606,  22;  early 
history,  see  Jamestoion ;  charter  of 
1609  and  1612, 25 ;  claims  to  "  North- 
west," ib.  ;  "Time  of  slavery," 
under  Dale,  26:  Yeardley's  re- 
forms, 27;  representative  govern- 
ment granted  by  Company,  28-30; 
a  royal  province,  33;  free  govern- 
ment preserved,  34,  35 ;  '*  Mutiny  " 
of  1635,  36;  enlarged  self-govern- 
ment under  the  Commonwealth, 
37;  after  the  Restoration,  102-106; 
Bacon's  Rebellion,  105 ;  aristocratic 
organization  confirmed,  106;  fran- 
chise, 105-107;  blue  laws,  120; 
colonial  society,  124;  and  the 
American  Revolution,  138-149; 
initiates  intercolonial  Committees 
of  Correspondence,  140 ;  calls  First 
Continental  Congress,  and  a  Pro- 
vincial Convention,  141;  county 
meetings  to  appoint  delegates  to 
provincial  convention,  145;  transi- 
tion from  colony  to  commonwealth, 
145;    instructs  delegates  at  Phila- 


800 


INDEX 


References  are  to  sections 


delphia  for  independence,  148; 
adopts  State  declaration  of  inde- 
pendence, 148;  the  bill  of  rights, 
149;  and  Lord  Dunmore's  War, 
169 ;  authority  over  Kentucky  and 
Illinois,  162,  165 ;  cession  of  West- 
ern territory,  180;  and  Military 
Reserve,  180;  champion  of  the 
•  West  in  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion, 205  b  ;  Jefferson's  reforms  in, 
252;  mother  of  Western  States, 
273;  and  democracy,  299;  seces- 
sion, 373. 

Virginia  plan,  in  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention, 200. 

Virginia  Resolutions  of  1797,  237. 

Wade,  "  Ben,"  on  Southern  designs 
on  Cuba,  367,  note;  on  Lincoln's 
death,  383. 

"Wages,  in  early  Massachusetts  regu- 
lated by  the  aristocratic  govern- 
ment, 62,  note ;  in  colonies  in 
general,  124;  in  1800,  249.  See 
Labor  movement. 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  on  intellec- 
tuality of  American  farmers,  251 
and  note. 

War  of  1812,  266  ff. ;  preceding  com- 
mercial war,  266;  "  Warhawks " 
and  decision  for  war,  267 ;  weakly 
conducted,  267;  victories  on  sea, 
267 ;  worth  while,  271 ;  results,  in 
American  history,  272  ff . 

"  War  Governors,"  370. 

Ward,  Nathaniel,  and  "  Body  of 
Liberties,"  81. 

"  Warhawks,"  the,  267,  268. 

Washington,  capital  located,  220; 
burned  in  1814,  268. 

Washington,  Booker  T.,  391. 

Washington,  George,  in  Pontiac's 
War,  130,  note ;  dislikes  refusal  to 
pay  British  debts,  138,  note;  on 
British  Act  for  transporting  colo- 
nists for  trial,139,note ;  commander 
in  chief  of  American  forces,  144 ; 
in  June  of  1775  denies  thought  of 
independence,  146;  in  the  Revolu- 
tion,  157,   158;    and  the  Newburg 


address,  161 ;  discouraged  by 
anarchy  after  Revolution,  191 ;  and 
the  Federal  Convention,  199  ff . ; 
interest  in  the  West,  199;  Presi- 
ding 212  ff . ;  forms  and  ceremonies, 
213;  tries  to  use  Senate  as  privy 
council,  215 ;  and  approval  of  Bank 
Bill,  222;  reelection,  227;  declines 
third  term,  227 ;  Neutrality  Procla- 
mation, 230;  reviled  for  Jay's 
treaty,  231 ;  commander  of  army 
for  expected  war  with  France,  234; 
refuses  to  be  candidate  in  1800,  239; 
and  civil  service,  255 ;  approves 
Justice  Dana's  partisanship,  256. 

Watauga,  165;  Articles  of,  167;  be- 
comes county  of  North  Carolina,  106. 

"Watered  Stock,"  397;  attempts 
to  check,  411 ;  amount  and  danger, 
412,  close. 

Water  power,  245.    See  Fall  Line. 

Watertown,  60,  note;  protest 
against  taxation  without  represen- 
tation in  1632,  63 ;  leads  in  setting 
up  town  government,  71. 

Waterways,  245  and  map. 

Wayne,  Anthony,  184. 

"We  the  People,"  210,  211. 

Weaver,  General,  427. 

Webster,  Daniel,  and  tariff  of  1824, 
279;  changes  sides  on  tariff  of 
1828,  279  c;  opposes  manhood 
suffrage,  299;  debate  with  Hayne, 
305;  Secretary  of  State,  321; 
Ashburton  treaty,  ib. ;  and  Com- 
promise of  1850,  347. 

Webster,  Noah,  on  American  learn- 
ing in  1800,  250 ;  Dictionary,  295. 

West,  the,  western  parts  of  original 
colonies,  112 ;  discriminated  against 
by  older  sections,  124,  137;  in  the 
Revolution,  137;  democratic  influ- 
ence of,  137;  the  second  "West," 
beyond  the  mountains,  born  in  the 
Revolution,  163;  the  Southwest 
self-developed,  165  ff.  (see  Wa- 
tauga) ;  frontier  conditions,  166 ; 
settlement  and  organization,  167- 
172;  movements  for  statehood  or 
separation,  173-176;    need  of   the 


INDEX 


801 


References  are  to  sections 


Mississippi,  175;  Eastern  jealousy 
of,  174;  the  "Old  Northwest  "  a 
national  domain,  177-180;  organi- 
zation, 181,  182;  settlement,  184; 
attempt  to  discriminate  against  in 
Philadelphia  Convention,  205 ;  first 
new  States  from,  224;  and  in- 
fluence for  Nationality  and  democ- 
racy, ib.;  rapid  growth  (1800- 
1810),  263;  another  "New  West" 
after  1815,  272  ff . ;  new  roads,  new 
land  policy,  262;  in  1830,  285;  de- 
mocracy of,  286;  political  victory 
of  in  1828,  284. 

West  Florida,  162,  261,  and  map. 

West  Virginia,  373,  410. 

"  Western  Reserve,"  the  (of  Con- 
necticut), 180. 

Wheelwright,  John,  adherent  of 
Ann  Hutchinson,  84. 

Whig  party,  310 ;  and  Tyler,  321. 

Whisky  Rebellion,  221. 

Whisky  Ring,  the,  389. 

White,  Rev.  John,  57,  note. 

Whitfield,  George,  121  c. 

Whitney,  Ely,  248. 

Whittier,  John  Greenleaf,  295; 
quoted  (Ichahod)  on  Webster,  347. 

Wigglesworth's  "  Day  of  Doom," 
121  and  note. 

"Wild  cat"  banks,  and  crisis  of 
1819,  279. 

Wilderness,  battles  of,  375. 

Wilderness  Road,  the,  170,  247. 

William  and  Mary  College,  122, 
note. 

Williams,  Roger,  characterized,  84; 
arrival  in  Massachusetts,  ib. ; 
banishment,  ib.;  founds  Rhode 
Island,  84,  86;  apostle  of  religious 
liberty,  85,  86;  wife  unable  to 
write,  122,  note. 

Wilmot  Proviso,  344. 

Wilson,  James,  200,  207. 

Winslow,  Edward,  historian  of 
Plymouth,  47,  note,  48. 

Winthrop,  John,  on  reasons  for  a 
Puritan  colony,  58 ;  leads  migra- 
tion, 59;  distrust  of  democracy, 
62;    rebukes    Watertown   protest, 


63;  attempts  to  stop  democratic 
movement,  63;  defeated  for  re- 
election, 64;  long  service  later,  ib., 
note. 

Wisconsin,  and  railoads,  402  b ;  and 
Workingman's  Compensation  Act, 
450  <7;  a  leading  State  in  reform, 
459. 

Witchcraft,  121  b.  * 

Wolfe,  General  James,  at  Quebec, 
16,  114;  opinion  of  colonial  troops, 
130,  note. 

Woman  Suffrage,  295, 297,  and  note, 
459,  note. 

Women,  in  higher  schools,  295  ;  legal 
rights  of,  297 ;  in  industry,  444  d. 

Wood,  General,  in  Cuba,  437. 

Woodrow  Wilson,  quoted  on  Pbila- 
delphia  Convention  as  a  class 
movement,  200,  note ;  on  Webster- 
Hayne  debate,  305;  on  South  in 
Civil  War,  375;  redeems  New 
Jersey,  411 ;  progressive  democ- 
racy, 458;  President,  458. 

Workingday,  sun  to  sun,  in  1800, 249 ; 
and  in  1830,  288;  ten-hour,  agita- 
tion for,  291,  292;  secured,  292, 
314 ;  agitation  for  eight-hour  day, 
450  b.    See  Child  Labor. 

"  Workingman's  Advocate,  "  the, 
289. 

Workingmen,  in  American  Revolu- 
tion, 137;  ask  a  referendum  in 
New  York  on  State  constitution, 
in  1776, 152.     See  Labor  Movement. 

Wright,  Prances,  labor  agitator  in 
1830,  291. 

Writs  of  Assistance,  129.  See 
General  Warrants. 

Wyatt,  Francis,  30,  34,  36. 

Wyoming  Valley,  dispute  over,  190. 

XYZ  affair,  the,  234. 

Yale,  122,  note;   proslavery  in  1850, 

348,  note. 
Yeardley,  Sir  George,  28,  33,  34. 

Zenger,  Peter,  and  freedom  of  the 
press,  119;  a  "  redemptioner,"  124, 
note. 


y  ■'  ^^jL 


4  ruu.  Yw*£^**<r~^ 


■^^Mjt*^ 


1  XnsuUS  .  (-^^^rJ^^JU 

2    >^JL^  /3^H^>^   }^^^^aA^A 


HI- 


«  ^^adw^ 


-  r«..  <  » 


Ti«*lU>^         J^^ 


>     r 


\ 


-sc^* 


^iC        «► 


-  «  •  v  ^ 


^    - 


-.1. 

7i  •     r 


kHtM* 


£    ' 


. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

EDUCATION  -  PSYCHOLOGY 
LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


7  DAY  USE  DURING 

SUMMER  SESSIONS 

NOV  1  2  1963 

NOV  13 1963 

JAN  1)5  IS81 

NDW  0  1    ' 

REC'D  |2y 

1  -MAM 

APR26I98I 

L?D264A7lsW)l763                            Uri^tfjSrni. 

YC  44232 


/ 


M292007    £/7f 
•  / 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


SMITH    BROS. 

BOOKSELLrl •■>,.    ART    DEALEP 

DISTl-tJ  nc-wrtt 


:  :  :i  . 

; 

: 

i 

i 
i 

yiUliij 

■ 

:;;  .'':: 

• 

% 

